Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

*This is where ID science loses its respectability, because it looks like a group of desperate fundamentalists having a panic attack. *

Interesting post. I don’t think I fall in the ranks of religious fundamentalists since I have no problem with evolution. What I do have a problem with is the presumption of atheistic science buffs and atheistic fanatics like Dawkins that there can be no intelligent design behind the whole business.

As a matter of fact, the remarks reported above by Newton, Darwin and Einstein do not strike me as “a group of desperate fundamentalists having a panic attack.” And I’m still waiting for someone to address why they said what they said while certainly not being desperate about what they said. In fact, in the case of Einstein especially, there seems to be a grudging reluctance to say what he thought because he knew it would be taken by the priests as a moment for rejoicing.

“I have never found a better expression than ‘religious’ for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.” Albert Einstein

How about chance and providence rolled up into one nice ball of sweet unity?

This is not a disagreeable notion, so long as you translate “providence” as “intelligent design.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Helena

The problem is the BB doesn’t have to account for purpose. It doesn’t have to have one. But Intelligent Design HAS to, simply because we are saying that intelligence is behind creation. That alone makes an extra layer of explanation necessary.

I’m not able to follow this. Are you saying the BB could have just happened by accident? But what would be the conditions leading to it? And if it has no purpose, don’t you have to prove that as well? Some cosmologists talk about the moment of the BB actually spewing forth in potency all the key elements that would be required ultimately to evolve the conditions ripe for life. That said, why can’t we infer that the purpose of the BB was to produce a universe ultimately capable of producing creatures able to wonder about the purpose of the universe?

Why does the universe have to be without purpose, unless one has already decided that there is no God?

*If ID is not about any one religion then the designer should not be off limits. *

I agree. The Designer should not be off limits. Newton, Darwin, and Einstein agree with you just by virtue of conceding that God has an intellect and superior reasoning power. However, the call for knowing more about the Intelligent Designer is a bold and demanding one from a purely intellectual point of view. We are just now barely scaling a mountain of problems concerning the complexity of inanimate and inanimate matter; so I think presuming to describe God in any very great detail from a purely logical point of view is going to be very difficult indeed. Perhaps we should satisfy ourselves with realizing that by our understanding of some of the laws of nature, we have at least gotten to know some of God’s thoughts.

If we want to get into the heart of God … into a loving personal relationship with God, I think we need to go elsewhere than science for help. We need to go to religion. We need to find the religion most consistent with how we think God would want to rule our hearts. And we might begin by looking for the one human emmisary who would best represent a loving and compassionate :bowdown: God.

 

[HelenaMT]

I’m not able to follow this. Are you saying the BB could have just happened by accident? But what would be the conditions leading to it? And if it has no purpose, don’t you have to prove that as well? Some cosmologists talk about the moment of the BB actually spewing forth in potency all the key elements that would be required ultimately to evolve the conditions ripe for life. That said, why can’t we infer that the purpose of the BB was to produce a universe ultimately capable of producing creatures able to wonder about the purpose of the universe?

Why does the universe have to be without purpose, unless one has already decided that there is no God?

As far as I know, the jury is still out on whether BB is absolutely true. It may be the reigning hypothesis, but not necessarily the end of it.

My point is, for those who promote BB or any materialistic hypothesis, a meaning is not necessary to their theory. They don’t seek any whys just hows. When you propose intelligent design, you are implying that there is a why that goes beyond simply figuring out the physical laws. That is implicit in proposing that an intelligence is behind creation. Any intelligent designer would have a purpose.

To me, that is why ID has such a hard time among scientists. It’s one thing to say something is designed, it’s another to explain how knowing that adds any new layers of understanding of the physical universe, which is the only thing science is really concerned with.

If you’re going to imply that there is a meaning and a purpose behind creation, what that purpose actually is becomes very important to the whole hypothesis.

If someone was to propose a model for a designer, and then show evidence in the physical world that pointed to that specific designer model, and then used that designer’s recognizable patterns to shed new light on some previously mysterious or misunderstood data, I think ID would have to be taken more seriously (and if such a model exists and I’m just ignorant of it, please let me know, I’d love to read it).

 

[rossum]

rossum

Abiogenesis is mostly chemistry.

In the lab it is mostly *intelligently designed *chemistry. So also at the dawn of life.

In the lab everything is intelligently designed. Scientists can study combustion in the lab, does that mean that all fires are intelligently designed?

Abogenesis did not take place in a lab.

rossum

 

[greylorn]

News, documentaries, and the ACLU are propagating atheist agenda?? This is like McCarthyism all over again…

You say that no amount of evidence of design can prove a designer… but nothing in science is ever proven 100%… there is only evidence to support or refute hypothesis. In this argument, evidence of designer would support the hypothesis of a designer regardless of defining said designer. Arguments from some scientists for design are fine, but they are not evidence.

You blow off my evidence saying you could pick it apart but that you won’t… convenient. Honestly, I don’t think you or I either have the credentials to do so, which is why I link to 3rd party evidence. Your point about evidence in a philosophical debate is well taken, but this debate is about ID which claims to be science, so unless it’s supports accept that it’s just philosophy that argument doesn’t apply here.

Why does the universe have to be brought into existence by something intelligent? Perhaps that is the detail that our primitive ancestors got so wrong?

From your reply I can conclude that you read my post once, had a tortilla and beer, and expressed your immediate opinion without paying much attention to anything I tried to say. This is obviously my fault for not saying things clearly enough. Yet I’ve found that the interesting things I’ve learned from writers did not come from a cursory reading on my part. .

There seems little point in you and I pursuing this discussion, for we appear to have different standards for engaging in a conversation. Sorry.

 

[tonyrey]

As we are rapidly approaching the end of this thread it seems useful to summarize my answer:

Intelligent Design is the most powerful, comprehensive and fertile explanation of the immensely complex universe, the exquisite richness and variety of nature, the origin and infinite value of life, the progressive development of living organisms, the existence of rational beings with their power of self-determination, their transcendence of their environment, their ability to distinguish good and evil, and their capacity for love and self-sacrifice. The success of science demonstrates the superiority of intelligence over blind forces like random mutations and natural selection.

Design explains the order and intelligibility of the universe - for which no other explanation has been given. It accounts for all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice, love, the right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Belief in Design is a glorious vision of reality which is in accord with the deepest yearnings and the highest aspirations of the human spirit. It interprets evolution not as the descent of man but as the ascent to God. It is verified by the power and ultimate responsibility of each individual for his or her destiny. To reject Design implies that rational, free, conscious, moral persons have been produced by the blind interplay of irrational, determined, unconscious and amoral forces. To deny the primacy of intelligence is to undermine the validity of reason - the logical consequence of which is total scepticism and nihilism. The choice is ours!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Abogenesis did not take place in a lab.

Yes it did; God’s lab!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*As far as I know, the jury is still out on whether BB is absolutely true. It may be the reigning hypothesis, but not necessarily the end of it. *

That is true, but there’s a good deal more evidence for the Big Bang (whatever that was) than there is for evolution. I don’t hear you making that comparison.

*My point is, for those who promote BB or any materialistic hypothesis, a meaning is not necessary to their theory. They don’t seek any whys just hows. *

Depends on what you mean by “meaning.” Do you mean a goal? Did the Big Bang have no goal? Is that a presumption science can make without proof? Did the Big Bang just happen without any reason for happening? Is that a peresumption science can make? Only if it is atheistic … and even then … what generated the BB? A blind chance event with no reason to happen? Seems remarkable that such an event would be capable of producing the phenomenon eloquently described in Tonyrey’s post #960.

When you propose intelligent design, you are implying that there is a why that goes beyond simply figuring out the physical laws. That is implicit in proposing that an intelligence is behind creation. Any intelligent designer would have a purpose.

Yes, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein thought so. Why then is it so untenable a thought for you? I’m still waiting for someone to attack Newton, Darwin, and Einstein for their lack of scientific method in the matter of Intelligent Design.

To me, that is why ID has such a hard time among scientists.

It certainly has a hard time among some scientists. Not Newton, Darwin, and Einstein. More so the likes of Dawkins, whose animosity to Design is only rivaled by his contempt for all religion.

It’s one thing to say something is designed, it’s another to explain how knowing that adds any new layers of understanding of the physical universe, which is the only thing science is really concerned with.

Science cannot dissociate itself from philosophy. Have you ever heard of the philosophy of science? It is a dicipline separate from formal scientific disciplines. It has to be because it concerns issues that scientists must deal with, but that they cannot deal with in the laboratory. For example, a typical point made by a philosopher of science might be that it makes no sense to intelligently design an experiment in a lab that produced the first spark of life, and then pretend that the results of that experiment were the product of chance. This is the application of pure reason to science, demonstrating that science can be at times irrationally motivated. Another instance of questionable motivation by scientists might be to assume that nothing is to be gained by conceding the point of intelligent design. How would the scientist know that without first applying the principle of intelligent design to his research?

*If you’re going to imply that there is a meaning and a purpose behind creation, what that purpose actually is becomes very important to the whole hypothesis. *

True. Just one (but perhaps the most important) result of the concession to intelligent design might be that the Designer probably did not mean the creature man to use science to invent a means by which to blow himself to smithereens. :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes: Isn’t this a lesson science needs to learn: that just because a thing can be done, that does not mean that it should be done?

If someone was to propose a model for a designer, and then show evidence in the physical world that pointed to that specific designer model, and then used that designer’s recognizable patterns to shed new light on some previously mysterious or misunderstood data, I think ID would have to be taken more seriously (and if such a model exists and I’m just ignorant of it, please let me know, I’d love to read it).

Yes, but how do you know that the Designer needs or wants a scientific model in order to achieve a presence in the physical world? God is entitled to certain secrets about His identity. As a Catholic you know that the model of Him we need to have is presented in Scriptures and by the life of Christ. This is a universal model for all people to comprehend, not just the scientists. And God is liberal in identifying Himself to us all, rather than on a petri dish or at the end of a telescope.

Yet scientists too can infer His presence, even the ones who didn’t go to daily Mass. Ask Newton, Darwin, and Einstein. They were not bashful about leaping beyond the methods of science to a conclusion that transcends all science.

 

[HelenaMT]

*As far as I know, the jury is still out on whether BB is absolutely true. It may be the reigning hypothesis, but not necessarily the end of it. *

That is true, but there’s a good deal more evidence for the Big Bang (whatever that was) than there is for evolution. I don’t hear you making that comparison.

Only because I agree with you on that one (well, sort of. I believe in directed evolution)

…Did the Big Bang have no goal? Is that a presumption science can make without proof? Did the Big Bang just happen without any reason for happening? Is that a peresumption science can make?

Yes, science can presume no goal, or meaning, since a goals and meanings are only associated with an intelligence. Otherwise, it’s just a function. Without hypothesizing an intelligence, you can’t presume a goal. You can’t speak of a computer having a goal, other than the goals of it’s programmer. Likewise, you can’t speak of the goal of the BigBang (or any other phenomena) without speaking about a creator. A goal implies decision making capability.

When you propose intelligent design, you are implying that there is a why that goes beyond simply figuring out the physical laws. That is implicit in proposing that an intelligence is behind creation. Any intelligent designer would have a purpose.

Yes, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein thought so. Why then is it so untenable a thought for you? I’m still waiting for someone to attack Newton, Darwin, and Einstein for their lack of scientific method in the matter of Intelligent Design.

It’s not untenable to me that there is a designer. My problem is with the manner in which ID proponents go about promoting the thing. The way I’ve heard it explained, it doesn’t belong in the same discipline as physics or biology. It seems like it should belong to metaphysics until it can actually provide a viable model of reality that has predictive and explanatory power.

I find it hard to believe that if Einstein, Newton, or Darwin had a real understanding of ID that they would have ignored it as a scientific pursuit. Who wouldn’t want to be the guy that scientifically proved the existence of God?

Science cannot dissociate itself from philosophy. Have you ever heard of the philosophy of science? It is a dicipline separate from formal scientific disciplines. It has to be because it concerns issues that scientists must deal with, but that they cannot deal with in the laboratory. For example, a typical point made by a philosopher of science might be that it makes no sense to intelligently design an experiment in a lab that produced the first spark of life, and then pretend that the results of that experiment were the product of chance. This is the application of pure reason to science, demonstrating that science can be at times irrationally motivated. Another instance of questionable motivation by scientists might be to assume that nothing is to be gained by conceding the point of intelligent design. How would the scientist know that without first applying the principle of intelligent design to his research?

Yes, I have heard of the philosophy of science. That’s why I have a hard time accepting ID the way it is currently presented as a serious scientific endeavor. Yes, it is silly to design the first spark of life and pretend that we have solved abiogenesis. But it’s equally silly to say something is designed when we don’t bother to ask what the purpose of the design might be. The only way this seems possible is philosophically, not scientifically.

Perhaps the best compromise curriculum-wise for ID would be that some sort of class on the philosophy of science be taught in the upper grades so students could understand the limits of science, instead of mindlessly accepting the words of scientists, who often seem blinded by their own specialized discipline.

… how do you know that the Designer needs or wants a scientific model in order to achieve a presence in the physical world? God is entitled to certain secrets about His identity. As a Catholic you know that the model of Him we need to have is presented in Scriptures and by the life of Christ. This is a universal model for all people to comprehend, not just the scientists. And God is liberal in identifying Himself to us all, rather than on a petri dish or at the end of a telescope.

This may well be true, but that approach will ensure that we are perpetually preaching to the choir. When you start talking about how the designer might want to purposefully leave things mysterious, you lose anyone who is not already one of the faithful. Maybe I misunderstood the point of the thread. I DO find intelligent design plausible, looking at the whole of creation and in the context of my own personal experiences, but I think it is severely limited in appeal to the non-religious so far.

Objectively, if I take the view of a materialist, I haven’t found anything on the record that would convince them, and since they dominate the sciences and academia, I don’t see how ID can go any further without gaining any of their interest.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Helena

*I find it hard to believe that if Einstein, Newton, or Darwin had a real understanding of ID that they would have ignored it as a scientific pursuit. Who wouldn’t want to be the guy that scientifically proved the existence of God? *

Well, for the reasons I stated above. They could infer from observing the laws of science a Designer, without expecting science to show a model for the Designer. Even Einstein might have considered that above his pay grade.

*Perhaps the best compromise curriculum-wise for ID would be that some sort of class on the philosophy of science be taught in the upper grades so students could understand the limits of science, instead of mindlessly accepting the words of scientists, who often seem blinded by their own specialized discipline. *

I don’t expect you to do this, but if you went far enough back in this thread, say about midway, you would see that I’ve suggested that as a compromise … even suggested that science textbook include a chapter on the philosophy of science, so that controversial hypotheses and theories could be aired without the official imprimature of science. Quotes like those I cited from Newton, Darwin, and Einstein would find a place in such a chapter. But I won’t hold my breath until science book publishers agree to such a policy. The “fantatical atheists” (Einstein’s words) would not tolerate such books in their classrooms.

When you start talking about how the designer might want to purposefully leave things mysterious, you lose anyone who is not already one of the faithful.

Would lose Dawkins for sure, but then he is already lost. So are all the other atheists in the scientific community … and they are legion. But I think some scientists have a modicum of humility about those problems in science that may be solved and those that will probably never be solved due to circumstances beyond human control. So the surrender to nature’s ultimate mysteries is only a prelude to surrendering to God’s secrets.

*Objectively, if I take the view of a materialist, I haven’t found anything on the record that would convince them, and since they dominate the sciences and academia, I don’t see how ID can go any further without gaining any of their interest. *

The materialists are usually atheists. It’s their loss. Science won’t necessarily always be dominated by atheists … though biology may be yet for some time. Gradually science may find a more bridgeable gap between itself and the supernatural. I am reminded of cosmologist Robert Jastrow’s remarks in his God and the Astronomers:

“Now we see how astronomical evidence leads to the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment of time, in a flash of light and energy…. For the scientist who has lived by the faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

And I remember how Isaac Asimov went ballistic when he read those remarks.

 

[MindOverMatter]

“Now we see how astronomical evidence leads to the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment of time, in a flash of light and energy…. For the scientist who has lived by the faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”.

I like this paragraph. But the scientific method will never yield any direct information about God that doesn’t require philosophical interpretation to that end. That being said, God is for the philosophers. Science is about discoveries about how the physical universe works and why it physically exists. To try and unite science and the supernatural, is to misunderstand what science is for, and what its limits are. If science cannot answer a question it will just say i don’t know. Why? Because it has nothing to say about that which cannot be measured by its instruments. ID supporters would be better of promoting their beliefs as a philosophy.

I think we should be exposing the limits of scientific inquiry and majesty concerning questions of truth. I think the real problem is that people are trying to turn science in to some kind of “rational religion”.

And I remember how Isaac Asimov went ballistic when he read those remarks.

Does Isaac Asimov hate the God concept?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Asimov is dead. I met him once. We are not supposed to sau anything unkind about the dead … so … Yet I think he was on record as an atheist.

ID supporters would be better of promoting their beliefs as a philosophy.

But how could it do that without the scientific underpinnings noted by Newton, Darwin, Einstein and others of the scientific community?

And is irreducible complexity to be reduced to the ashbin of scientific history just because it makes atheists uncomfortable?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here Dembski raises some interesting questions for a teacher of biology. If such questions were allowed to be asked in a public school science class (which is doubtful), students would have a chance to be stimulated by the answers, no matter which way they went.

designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Ten_Questions_ID.pdf

Of course, such questions can always be asked outside the science classroom, but then atheist biologists would not be in control of answering them. Someone else might be in control of the answers, and the biologists might not like missing the opportunity to reply.

So on balance there really seems to be a logical argument to advance that such issues should be presented in the biology classroom, never mind the bio-chemistry class, where the discussion on abiogenesis could be really interesting!

 

[greylorn]

Only because I agree with you on that one (well, sort of. I believe in directed evolution)

Yes, science can presume no goal, or meaning, since a goals and meanings are only associated with an intelligence. Otherwise, it’s just a function. Without hypothesizing an intelligence, you can’t presume a goal. You can’t speak of a computer having a goal, other than the goals of it’s programmer. Likewise, you can’t speak of the goal of the BigBang (or any other phenomena) without speaking about a creator. A goal implies decision making capability.

It’s not untenable to me that there is a designer. My problem is with the manner in which ID proponents go about promoting the thing. The way I’ve heard it explained, it doesn’t belong in the same discipline as physics or biology. It seems like it should belong to metaphysics until it can actually provide a viable model of reality that has predictive and explanatory power.

I find it hard to believe that if Einstein, Newton, or Darwin had a real understanding of ID that they would have ignored it as a scientific pursuit. Who wouldn’t want to be the guy that scientifically proved the existence of God?

Yes, I have heard of the philosophy of science. That’s why I have a hard time accepting ID the way it is currently presented as a serious scientific endeavor. Yes, it is silly to design the first spark of life and pretend that we have solved abiogenesis. But it’s equally silly to say something is designed when we don’t bother to ask what the purpose of the design might be. The only way this seems possible is philosophically, not scientifically.

Perhaps the best compromise curriculum-wise for ID would be that some sort of class on the philosophy of science be taught in the upper grades so students could understand the limits of science, instead of mindlessly accepting the words of scientists, who often seem blinded by their own specialized discipline.

This may well be true, but that approach will ensure that we are perpetually preaching to the choir. When you start talking about how the designer might want to purposefully leave things mysterious, you lose anyone who is not already one of the faithful. Maybe I misunderstood the point of the thread. I DO find intelligent design plausible, looking at the whole of creation and in the context of my own personal experiences, but I think it is severely limited in appeal to the non-religious so far.

Objectively, if I take the view of a materialist, I haven’t found anything on the record that would convince them, and since they dominate the sciences and academia, I don’t see how ID can go any further without gaining any of their interest.

Helena,
Thanks to your “sort of” qualifier in your comment about directed evolution, there’s nothing for me to complain about in your post, and many things to compliment. Clear thinking, good logic, and excellent presentation. I’ll bet you a buck at 50-to-1 odds that Charley comes back with more disingenuous arguments nonetheless.

 

[greylorn]

The infinite value of life implies that the Designer must be infinitely good as well as immensely intelligent to create and implement the Design of this immensely complex universe. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the Designer is hardly likely to be inferior in any respect to the products of Design. As Hume remarked, the cause must be proportioned to the effect. Since human beings have creative power, insight, free will and a capacity for love the Designer must also have these attributes to a far greater degree…

What is this “infinite value of life” blather? You know what “infinite” means. You therefore know that your statement is a meaningless neurolinguistic segue into other comments which do not even depend upon it.

Since you are clearly referring to the omnipotent God of Christianity disguised as the quasi-mysterious “Designer,” let’s not add more poo to the pile by using proxies.

What does “infinitely good” mean? Are you referring to the infinitely good God Who in the O.T. ordered His Hebrew armies to kill the defenseless male captives of the cities they captured, children included, but “enslave” the females? And, keep the gold and silver before burning the city? How “good” do you suppose that outcome was for the killed male children? Do you suppose that the “enslaved” female children received a better outcome?

“Good” in this context seems to further your beliefs.

Consider another context. Following the orders of “Allah,” thousands of people who preferred to believe in “God,” which ecumenists declare is only another word for the same thing, were tortured and butchered for refusing to accept the name change.

-------- Next topic, the Hume quote -------

What makes you think that human beings have free will? Is it because we are programmed to parrot those meaningless words?

The truth is that we are enslaved by our lusts, passions, and inherent greediness, all attributes programmed into the human species to insure its survival. There is no way that ancestral homo sapiens would have survived with brains programmed by current Christian belief systems.

The same human beings to whom you ascribe “free will” are easily manipulated by commercial enterprises and politicians reading from teleprompters. They make purchase decisions based upon television cartoons. Their beliefs are programmed in childhood, and anyone who has control of the programming medium controls those beliefs.

There are a few exceptions. About 3% of the population. They do not count.

I’m curious that you refer to the “infinite value” of life, and freely employ the phrase “infinitely good,” yet bump your adjectives down a big notch when referring to the Creator, Who is now only “immensely” (clearly not infinitely) intelligent. What’s this about?

I agree completely with your implicit declaration that the Creator of the Universe is not omnipotent, since I know you’ve read the website where that idea was logically proposed.

I appreciate that you feel a need to hang onto some threads of the old omnipotent God concept. The longer you do, the more you will prolong your confusion.

I never liked David Hume as a philosopher. To make statements about an undefined God (a.k.a. “Designer”) whose properties are invented by religionists is to extend the religion, as you’ve demonstrated.

Consider the statement you lifted from Hume:“Since human beings have creative power, insight, free will and a capacity for love the Designer must also have these attributes to a far greater degree.”

This idiotic (note to moderator— Hume is dead so the insult is hardly personal) argument by analogy suggests that toaster ovens and nuclear missiles, which are designed by humans who possess the aforementioned properties, should reflect the emotions of their human creators.

Do you know of any loving toaster ovens or lethal projectiles?

 

[greylorn]

As we are rapidly approaching the end of this thread it seems useful to summarize my answer:

Intelligent Design is the most powerful, comprehensive and fertile explanation of the immensely complex universe, the exquisite richness and variety of nature, the origin and infinite value of life, the progressive development of living organisms, the existence of rational beings with their power of self-determination, their transcendence of their environment, their ability to distinguish good and evil, and their capacity for love and self-sacrifice. The success of science demonstrates the superiority of intelligence over blind forces like random mutations and natural selection.

Design explains the order and intelligibility of the universe - for which no other explanation has been given. It accounts for all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice, love, the right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Belief in Design is a glorious vision of reality which is in accord with the deepest yearnings and the highest aspirations of the human spirit. It interprets evolution not as the descent of man but as the ascent to God. It is verified by the power and ultimate responsibility of each individual for his or her destiny. To reject Design implies that rational, free, conscious, moral persons have been produced by the blind interplay of irrational, determined, unconscious and amoral forces. To deny the primacy of intelligence is to undermine the validity of reason - the logical consequence of which is total scepticism and nihilism. The choice is ours!

This is a lovely and eloquent expression of a belief which your grandchildren will disavow, because of its fundamental flaw.

Consider your statement:

“Design explains the order and intelligibility of the universe - for which no other explanation has been given.”

“Design” per se explains nothing. Until it coughs up a legitimate description of its alleged “Designer” it will remain the intellectual proxy of religionists who believe in the omnipotent God of Christianity, a wonderful theoretical concept and source of comforting religious beliefs which makes no more sense for those seeking legitimate explanations of things than does the Big Bang or Darwinism,

 

[tonyrey]

"Design explains the order and intelligibility of the universe - for which no other explanation has been given.

"*“Design” per se explains nothing.

Even if we knew nothing about the Designer there is no evidence whatsoever that Design can exist without a Designer. Evidence for design is evidence for a designer. We know that from our direct experience of both. Design is the result of conscious, rational, purposeful activity and not due to unconscious, irrational, purposeless events.

We also know that the Designer of this vast and magnificent universe must have immense insight, power and creativity. We associate insight, power and creativity not with the brain but with the mind. Physicalists believe the mind cannot exist without the brain but there is no rational basis for this assumption. There is no evidence that the brain is conscious of itself, has insight into its own activity, has free will or the power to control itself. That is why human beings have always distinguished the mind from the brain.

Our primary data are our thoughts, feelings and sensations. We infer that the body exists from the evidence of our senses but the fundamental reality is our intangible stream of thoughts, emotions and decisions. The power of the mind and the intangible nature of all that we consider most precious - truth, goodness, freedom and love - imply that a Designer is the only adequate explanation of the Design in the universe. The pursuit of the truth in both philosophy and science presupposes the existence of purpose, the power of intelligence and the intelligibility of the universe:

"The highest formal unity, which is based on concepts of reason alone, is the systematical and purposeful unity of things, and it is the speculative interest of reason which makes it necessary to regard all order in the world as if it had originated in the purpose of a supreme wisdom. Such a principle opens to our reason in the field of experience quite new views, how to connect the things of the world according to teleological laws and thus to arrive at their greatest systematic unity…

For the purely speculative use of reason, therefore, the Supreme Being, remains, no doubt, an ideal only but an ideal without a flaw, a concept which finishes and crowns the whole of human knowledge and the objective reality of which, though it cannot be proved can neither be disproved in that way." (Immanuel Kant)

I should add that Kant is not referring to the empirical evidence for Design.but to the metaphysical concept of the Supreme Being - which remains the most powerful, elegant, adequate, economical, fertile and inspiring explanation of our existence.

 

[tonyrey]

What is this “infinite value of life” blather?

What value do you attach to your life and the lives of your family?

What does “infinitely good” mean?

Life is infinitely good because it is the source of all that we have and are - including the power to deny that life has any value…

What makes you think that human beings have free will?

Without free will all our thoughts have physical causes, we have no control over them and there is no guarantee that any of our conclusions are true…

The truth is that we are enslaved by our lusts, passions, and inherent greediness, all attributes programmed into the human species to insure its survival.

If we are enslaved by our lusts, passions, and inherent greediness your conclusions are the product of your lusts, passions, and inherent greediness - and therefore irrational…

I’m curious that you refer to the “infinite value” of life, and freely employ the phrase “infinitely good,” yet bump your adjectives down a big notch when referring to the Creator, Who is now only “immensely” (clearly not infinitely) intelligent. What’s this about?

I have pointed out that there are two aspects to Design: the metaphysical and the scientific.

Consider the statement you lifted from Hume:“Since human beings have creative power, insight, free will and a capacity for love the Designer must also have these attributes to a far greater degree.”

It would be interesting to see the precise reference to Hume’s statement. Otherwise your allegation is not only gratuitous but false. It has no bearing on the truth of my statement.This is supposed to be a rational discussion. There is no point in quoting my statement unless you are prepared to refute it:

“Since human beings have creative power, insight, free will and a capacity for love the Designer must also have these attributes to a far greater degree.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn
*
I’ll bet you a buck at 50-to-1 odds that Charley comes back with more disingenuous arguments nonetheless. *

Nope. I’m all out of disingenuous arguments.

 

[tonyrey]

The truth is that we are enslaved by our lusts, passions, and inherent greediness, all attributes programmed into the human species to insure its survival.

I forgot to add that your “truth” that “we are enslaved by our lusts, passions, and inherent greediness, all attributes programmed into the human species to insure its survival” is refuted by the fact that **you **toowould be enslaved by your lusts, passions, and inherent greediness programmed into you to insure your survival and they could equally well lead to your destruction - given that you would have no control over your thoughts and such weaknesses would be a sure recipe for disaster. There seems to be a flaw in your reasoning somewhere…