Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

As a Catholic, you have already agreed that God designed the universe and everything in it.

Why then does the idea of intelligent design seem so repulsive to you? I can see that you might not regard it as science, but why would God design a universe in which there are no clear signs of intelligent design, either scientific or philosophical?

Why would God want to give us a universe in which it appears to be a mere caprice of atoms and molecules that life even appeared, never mind evolving toward the pointless existence of the human race, as so many atheists believe?

 

[reggieM]

Michaelo

As a Catholic, you have already agreed that God designed the universe and everything in it.

We proclaim this in the Creed. We also proclaim publicly that God has intervened in nature and has changed nature.

Why then does the idea of intelligent design seem so repulsive to you? I can see that you might not regard it as science, but why would God design a universe in which there are no clear signs of intelligent design, either scientific or philosophical?

Those are excellent questions. This is the glaring problem I’ve seen also. St. Paul (and infallibly confirmed by the dogma of Vatican I) taught that God can be known from the things He has created. Evolutionists claim that there is no evidence of God’s design in the universe. This also goes against St. Thomas’ third proof also. What Catholic theologians validate this view (that there is no evidence of design in nature)?

Why would God want to give us a universe in which it appears to be a mere caprice of atoms and molecules that life even appeared, never mind evolving toward the pointless existence of the human race, as so many atheists believe?

This is a major point also. The total and uncritical embrace of evolutionary theory eliminates God’s role as creator and leaves us with blind faith alone. There is, supposedly, no evidence of God’s design and intelligence at work in nature. That’s the atheist position – and that’s what has been argued here continually.

 

[masterjedi747]

As a Catholic, you have already agreed that God designed the universe and everything in it.

Why then does the idea of intelligent design seem so repulsive to you?

Because you seem to be requiring God who to step in and miraculously create life… you seem to require that the universe God created is incapable of achieving His will without supernatural assistance.

…why would God design a universe in which there are no clear signs of intelligent design, either scientific or philosophical?

Why would God want to give us a universe in which it appears to be a mere caprice of atoms and molecules that life even appeared, never mind evolving toward the pointless existence of the human race, as so many atheists believe?

I wouldn’t particularly grant any of those claims. Except perhaps (something like your second question) that the existence of life (not to mention our own existence) in the universe does not appear to have been strictly necessary… which ought to give us an extra dose of humility and thankfulness, even praise for Divine Providence.

 

[liquidpele]

This is a major point also. The total and uncritical embrace of evolutionary theory eliminates God’s role as creator and leaves us with blind faith alone. There is, supposedly, no evidence of God’s design and intelligence at work in nature. That’s the atheist position – and that’s what has been argued here continually.

Not at all. Saying that ID is an idea or an option is fine. Saying it is science is ridiculous.

On the evidence of God… this link was given to me by a Catholic on this forum… very good read on that topic.

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/05/23/asking-the-wrong-question-a-meditation-on-the-question-%E2%80%9Cdoes-god-exist%E2%80%9D/

 

[Charlemagne_II]

masterjedi

Because you seem to be requiring God who to step in and miraculously create life… you seem to require that the universe God created is incapable of achieving His will without supernatural assistance.

You, a Catholic, don’t believe God created and sustains the universe and everything in it? You don’t believe in Isaiah’s words at the bottom of this post?

Did Christ decide that we could be saved “without supernatural assistance”? Do you, a Catholic, believe that we can pray to God for assistance and he will be there for us? Do you believe in the miracles of Jesus that could not have been performed “without supernatural assistance”? Do you believe that God does not constantly supervise the affairs of us all, or do you believe that every moment we live and breathe is done “without supernatural assistance”?

 

[masterjedi747]

We also proclaim publicly that God has intervened in nature and has changed nature.

…you mean the Incarnation, when God steps in to repair our fallen human nature?
I don’t have the slightest problem with that (…far from it, actually). But it’s not quite the same.

St. Paul (and infallibly confirmed by the dogma of Vatican I) taught that God can be known from the things He has created.

Of course. But would you say that God could not in principle have been known from the things He had created, if He had not willed to create life? Aquinas would certainly disagree with that claim, and I think St. Paul would too.

Evolutionists claim that there is no evidence of God’s design in the universe. This also goes against St. Thomas’ third proof also.

I think you mean St. Thomas’ fifth proof. But the concept of evolution doesn’t damage that proof in the slightest… even evolutionists will talk about species evolving certain characteristics for certain purposes: better camouflage, better defense… all ultimately for the sake of survival and/or reproduction.

What Catholic theologians validate this view (that there is no evidence of design in nature)?

None, that I’m aware of. Unless of course by “design” you mean “supernatural design”. But no Catholic theologian who has their head screwed on straight would have a problem with natural design.

The total and uncritical embrace of evolutionary theory eliminates God’s role as creator and leaves us with blind faith alone. There is, supposedly, no evidence of God’s design and intelligence at work in nature.

That’s the atheist position – and that’s what has been argued here continually.

I would argue with both of those claims, actually.
You do not need to take down evolution in order to argue for purpose in nature.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

masterjedi

*You do not need to take down evolution in order to argue for purpose in nature. *

But you neeed to raise up evolution in order to deny God’s purpose, at least according to Richard Dawkins.

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” Richard Dawkins

 

[masterjedi747]

You, a Catholic, don’t believe God created and sustains the universe and everything in it?

I believe I said quite the contrary in one of my previous posts.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear about that, though.

You don’t believe in Isaiah’s words at the bottom of this post?

I certainly do.

Did Christ decide that we could be saved “without supernatural assistance”?

Nope.
Although to be fair, reversing the Fall pretty much required something that extreme.

Do you, a Catholic, believe that we can pray to God for assistance and he will be there for us? Do you believe in the miracles of Jesus that could not have been performed “without supernatural assistance”?

Yes to both.

Do you believe that God does not constantly supervise the affairs of us all…

No.
(I do believe that He does.)

or do you believe that every moment we live and breathe is done “without supernatural assistance”?

Ah. Now that’s exactly where I would make a distinction.
Every moment that we live and breathe is most certainly caused by God.
But God ordinarily causes/sustains these things though natural means. He works though nature, causing things to behave according to their nature. But when something supernatural (literally: “above nature”) is involved, then when we start referring to these things as miracles, since they transcend what nature is capable of doing on its own.
Our living and breathing, to stick with that example, is not miraculous, since it has natural (not supernatural) causes… even though God is certainly the cause of those natural causes.

But you neeed to raise up evolution in order to deny God’s purpose, at least according to Richard Dawkins.

I tend to disagree with any sentence Richard Dawkins has ever said containing the word “God”.
But I would respond that “raising up” evolution can only deny God if you also grant the mistaken premise that natural things are wholly self-sufficient, and not ultimately dependent upon God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

masterjedi

Agreed to, except for the phrase I have to add in bold, which is the only thing Dawkins has to deny.

But I would respond that “raising up” evolution can only deny God if you also grant the mistaken premise that natural things are wholly self-sufficient, and not ultimately dependent upon God.

… or upon intelligent design, which is the plan of God.

Again, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein saw no problem with ascribing the laws of the universe to some kind of superior reasoning power. It is really the atheists alone who do not want to see intelligent design in nature … and a few sympathetic Catholics.

 

[Michaelo]

Please explain how you calculated the probability that life appeared by accident (not by natural selection, and remember to identify all variables used in the calculation).

Then explain how you proved based on an intelligently designed experiment that life appeared without intelligent design. What’s your text? Who won the Nobel for that achievement? Why isn’t it in the news?

You know you have zip … no science whatever … just blind faith.

And you don’;t even have the math on your side. If you think you do, prove it.

Wow, it’s astonishing that you continue to commit the same logical fallacies again and again.

For the sake of argument, I’ll admit that the probability of abiogenesis occurring is incredibly small and that nobody has had any success exploring this concept through experimentation in the lab. What you seem not to understand is that this in no way bolsters the scientific legitimacy of ID. Revealing the alleged shortcomings of abiogenesis as a means of substantiating ID presupposes that only two explanations exist for the origin of life, and you have again failed to demonstrate why ID is the only alternative.

As to the math … read William Dembski, mathematician and philosopher. It’s impossible to do all that in this forum and you know it.

Wesley Elsberry from Texas A&M University and Jeffrey Shallit from the University of Waterloo found that “Dembski’s work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others’ results.”

Here’s some of their analysis of Dembski’s calculations:

In order for his objections to be convincing, Dembski needs to perform a calculation, calculating the CSI in output, program and (name removed by moderator)ut, and showing that the claimed inequality holds. This he simply fails to do for each of the examples.

Biologically his calculations verge on the ridiculous, since no reputable biologist believes the fagellum arose in the manner Dembski suggests.

If we look closely at the calculation Dembski provides for plocal, we note that it hides a critical assumption, that the E. coli cell should be considered as a grab-bag of proteins, all of them available in equal proportion at any location within the cell. That this assumption is untrue should come as no surprise to the reader.

There are two things to note about these numbers in Dembski’s calculation. The first is the complete lack of any rigorous justification for the selection of these particular values…The second is the extreme sensitivity of Dembski’s profered equation to any change in these values…This indicates that for the calculation to have any meaning whatsoever, the values utilized need to be empirically determined to a high degree of precision.

source

 

[Michaelo]

Michaelo

As a Catholic, you have already agreed that God designed the universe and everything in it.

Why then does the idea of intelligent design seem so repulsive to you? I can see that you might not regard it as science, but why would God design a universe in which there are no clear signs of intelligent design, either scientific or philosophical?

Why would God want to give us a universe in which it appears to be a mere caprice of atoms and molecules that life even appeared, never mind evolving toward the pointless existence of the human race, as so many atheists believe?

As I said before, I have no problem believing that God is ultimately responsible for the physical laws that govern evolution, abiogenesis, etc. and therefore has a huge influence on the universe.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

It is not erroneous to point out that abiogenesis by accident has not been proven, and therefore is not science.

You have a very distorted view of what science is. Something doesn’t have to be proven for it to be science. The ability to engage in the scientific method is what makes something science.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

EmperorNapoleon

*You have a very distorted view of what science is. Something doesn’t have to be proven for it to be science. The ability to engage in the scientific method is what makes something science. *

I think maybe you are confusing science with science fiction?

Michaelo

For the sake of argument, I’ll admit that the probability of abiogenesis occurring is incredibly small and that nobody has had any success exploring this concept through experimentation in the lab.

This is a huge concession and I thank you for it.

*Revealing the alleged shortcomings of abiogenesis as a means of substantiating ID presupposes that only two explanations exist for the origin of life, and you have again failed to demonstrate why ID is the only alternative. *

Perhaps you are not aware that some propositions do not allow of more than two alternatives. Example: Either the universe exists or it does not. Can you think of a third alternative? Darned if I can!

Well, I notice you also have not come up with a third alternative for blind abiognesis or intelligent design … though your hope may spring more eternal than mine.

As to the claims and counterclaims of Dembski and his critics, that dialogue is not suitable for this forum because the math would be extremely difficult to discuss without destroying most interest in the thread. I caution you to remember that Dembski is not alone in his calculations. If you know as much about micro-chemistry as you seem you know about mathematics, you must concede, as you did above, that the likelihood of abiogenesis by accident is, in your own words, “incredibly small.”

So at this point I feel the thread has pretty well played out … at least for me. This is my last post. It’s been a blast. Y’all have fun!

Thank you and God bless!

Charlie

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s concentrate on two fundamental issues and return to the others when we have dispatched these:

That is enough to show that evolution is not a chance process.

 

[Michaelo]

This is a huge concession and I thank you for it.

Hang on there!

Remember that if I preface a statement with “for the sake of argument,” it doesn’t mean that this statement reflects how I truly feel but rather was made to advance the discussion, test a line of reasoning, etc.

Perhaps you are not aware that some propositions do not allow of more than two alternatives. Example: Either the universe exists or it does not. Can you think of a third alternative? Darned if I can!

Well with matters of existence, perhaps, but I have yet to be shown why a dichotomy exists for explanations of the origin of life.

Well, I notice you also have not come up with a third alternative for blind abiognesis or intelligent design … though your hope may spring more eternal than mine.

I’m sure I could research and find another explanation, but that’s not the point. I currently may be unable to think of another one but that doesn’t permit me to definitively say that only two exist and base an entire argument on this faulty premise, which is what many ID advocates appear to do.

As to the claims and counterclaims of Dembski and his critics, that dialogue is not suitable for this forum because the math would be extremely difficult to discuss without destroying most interest in the thread. I caution you to remember that Dembski is not alone in his calculations. If you know as much about micro-chemistry as you seem you know about mathematics, you must concede, as you did above, that the likelihood of abiogenesis by accident is, in your own words, “incredibly small.”

Yes, I’d also be relieved to not have to delve into specifics about these calculations

So at this point I feel the thread has pretty well played out … at least for me. This is my last post. It’s been a blast. Y’all have fun!

Thank you and God bless!

Charlie

Thanks for the interesting discussion! I had fun as well

 

[VanDoodah]

VanDoodah

*ID isn’t a theory. It’s not even a testable hypothesis. Scientific hypotheses have to be testable and falsifiable - ID is neither.

Sorry to burst your pseudo-scientific bubble. *

ID is a virtual mathematical certainty. Accidental abiogenesis is a virtual mathematical impossibility.

Sorry to burst your pseudo-mathematical bubble!

1. Explain your method for coming to that conclusion.
2. Cite your scientific evidence for the claim that an intelligent designer is a “mathematical certainty.”
3. Cite your scientific evidence for the claim that abiogenesis is a “mathematical impossibility”.

Also, there’s no such thing as a “virtual mathematical impossibility”. It either is mathematically certain or it isn’t. There’s no mid-way point in maths.

 

[liquidpele]

Let’s concentrate on two fundamental issues and return to the others when we have dispatched these:I am not claiming evolution is a **internally **chance process, although it does contain an element of chance. I am claiming unDesigned evolution has a random origin and is geared solely to survival. It is a physical mechanism and like all other physical mechanisms it has no end in sight. It is purposeless because purpose in the full sense of the term implies an intention, a plan in a person’s mind. Selection is not purpose. Computers and robots are programmed to make selections but they are not genuinely purposeful.
“By chance” is the opposite of “by design”, e.g. they met by chance. So if you reject evolution by design you must accept evolution by chance. Please let us know which of the following statements you accept:

1. Life had a fortuitous origin with random arrangements of molecules.
2. The evolution of life commenced with random mutations.
3. Biological evolution is in many ways a ruthless, haphazard process.
4. Biological evolution is geared solely to physical survival.
5. Biological evolution could have terminated with the extinction of all life on this planet.
6. Biological evolution is not directed to personal development.
   You cannot see the mind of the designer and it is the mind, not the body, that is responsible for design. Many atheists claim, of course, that all minds are embodied but I don’t think that is your view. So why do you have such a problem with a Designer?

Natural selection is “chance” by your description then? Okay, lets say you have 2 doors… one leads to certain death, the other leads to you living. You have 2 people, and each walk through a door. You’re basically claiming it was “chance” that the person going through the latter door lived, but you neglect that the rules were set up so that only certain outcomes were going to be beneficial. The outcomes being set up are not chance, they are just the reality of the situation. From there, it is no surprise which outcomes will then be successful. Essentially, your description of “chance” is using loaded dice.

I also think both you and Charlemagne II keep blurring abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution has nothing (ZERO) to do with abiogenesis. One is how life originated, the other is how it evolved.

In answer to your question, I only agree with #3 and #6 (assuming you mean what I think you mean by #6), although I personally think #1 and #2 are likely.

 

[reggieM]

Theistic evolution reduces God’s role from Creator to Lawmaker. In the case of evolution, where all of nature is the product of random mutations, random environmental effects and the competition for survival – there is very little “law” to speak of.

In this view, there is no design or intelligence evident or discernable in the universe – and the understanding of the development of human life through evolution is indistinguishable from the atheistic view.

 

[reggieM]

You, a Catholic, don’t believe God created and sustains the universe and everything in it? You don’t believe in Isaiah’s words at the bottom of this post?

Did Christ decide that we could be saved “without supernatural assistance”? Do you, a Catholic, believe that we can pray to God for assistance and he will be there for us? Do you believe in the miracles of Jesus that could not have been performed “without supernatural assistance”? Do you believe that God does not constantly supervise the affairs of us all, or do you believe that every moment we live and breathe is done “without supernatural assistance”?

These again are important and essential questions. God changes nature by raising the dead (as many saints did), healing, bringing supernatural life into nature, creating spiritual souls which are capable of making decisions (and rise *above *nature – not caused by or enslaved by it), free will overcomes “selection” and refutes evolutionism. Supernatural assistance is constant – God’s intervention never stops. These are basic truths.

 

[Michaelo]

reggieM

You still haven’t offered any scientific evidence that supports ID