Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[greylorn]

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.”

What reference might I have other than your post which included the aforementioned Hume quote? Do I need another reference?

In my post #960 I told you what I thought of the statement and your employment thereof. I refuted it there. What else do you want?

 

[tonyrey]

But I would be worth exactly what I was worth before I was born. Zero, zip, nada. From dust we come and to dust we shall return.

Rather than a dismal prospect which does not do justice to your otherwise optimistic outlook. After all you seem to believe in cosmic justice.

I expected better from you here. I’ve no problem accepting that you or anyone else finds life to be good, wonderful, exciting,or whatever. It is your use of the specific term “infinite” with which I quibble, because you are using a word which I suspect you do not appreciate the meaning or implications of.

I use the term “infinite” deliberately and unreservedly because I believe the persons He has created are indestructible. Not only that. I believe free will is a gift from God - Whom we can choose to deny, ignore, reject, condemn, curse or hate. I think you’ll agree that is a most remarkable phenomenon… that a minute dot can defy the Will of the Creator!

Guess what. **Most **of our “thoughts” are generated by a physical device called the human brain. We don’t have control over them, and except for really simpleminded observations, few of what passes in the average human for “thoughts” are true.

Most = the loophole!

A thought in the form of a creative idea might appear within the brain/soul simplex. I suspect that you have not the slightest idea how to distinguish “soul” from brain, and are unqualified to declare from which mechanism a “thought” emanates, much less define the term “thought.”

I certainly don’t claim to have any esoteric knowledge… Thank God!

What you perceive as “true conclusions” are simply the programs inserted into your brain by your family, society, and Church. They are equivalent to the “prime directives” of a robot.

If that were so it would let me completely off the hook. I think my criminal inclinations would lead to feats you could never imagine.

Although you are capable of genuine thought at the level of soul, you limit those abilities to simply justifying the beliefs which others have programmed into your brain.

Thank you for that consoling thought. My degree of responsibility is far less than I imagined.

Tony, I am losing respect for you as a philosopher.

From my early youth I ceased to care about what people think of me. I realised it’s essential not to let our lives be ruled by what other people think… or what we think they think… or what we think they think we think…

You speak from a philosophy which in the context of your own Catholic beliefs is illogical.

If you knew how unorthodox I am… on the subject of hell, for example.

As a Catholic, you seem to think that “you” will go to heaven, know God, etc. etc.

You seem to know more about me than I do… Perhaps I know more about you than you do… Only God knows what you know and I know and what everyone else knows… (Occam’s Razor!)

 

[tonyrey]

What reference might I have other than your post which included the aforementioned Hume quote? Do I need another reference?
In my post #960 I told you what I thought of the statement and your employment thereof. I refuted it there. What else do you want?

A reference to the exact page. I assume it to be in the Dialogues…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

itinerant

The Creator is above nature, and natural science, which treats of phenomenal reality, does not address supernatural reality. Newton’s references to God are meta-scientific references.

Do you, as a Catholic, have a serious problem with the intelligent design of the universe and everything in it?

Then how is it that you are willing to let science posit the contrary, without proof, and get away with it? Do you believe there are two equally true, but contrary realities … one for religion and one for science?

How logical is that? Why are you, as a Catholic, so willing to deny that there is any scientific evidence possible of God’s designing intellect, when non-Catholics like Newton, Darwin, and Einstein could see intelligent design all over the place?
*

ID assumes “irreducible complexity”. This is an unproven assumption by proponents of ID, and it is poor science to boot. ID also conflates ultimate and proximate causes. This is bad philosophy. This conflation of causes entails a misunderstanding of God’s creative activity and providence over his creation. Hence, ID leads to poor theology.*

And abiogenesis by chance assumes chance without proof. Is that science? Show me the definitive publication that won a Nobel award for proving abiogenesis by chance.

You can’t. What constantly grabs me is that the defenders of abiogenesis by chance never demand of themselves the same proof that they demand of ID. And this when Intelligent Design is far better known and recognized in science than chance.

You sound contemptutous of “rank” philosophy. Are you also contemptuous of the philosophy of science?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

*Tony, I am losing respect for you as a philosopher. I used the word “enslaved” purposely. A slave is required to do his master’s bidding, but on his own time he gets to live according to his own thoughts. If those thoughts are beliefs programmed into his brain my his master’s church, then he’s not going to have much of a mental life. But if an enslaved person has rejected, rebelled against, or even whined loudly about his programming, some properties of his mind may be his own, and some few of his actions may reflect the tiny bit of independently conscious soul that emerges from the morass of the pre-programmed brain. *

More ad hominems? Whew! So would it be O.K. if I said that you are a slave to the atheistic establishment ruled by the infallibe Church of Dawkins?

C’mon, you can do better!

 

[cerad]

Charlemagne II:

It must be intensely irritating to you that Darwin and Einstein both saw intelligence not only within, but also behind the universe. It’s true, they could be wrong, but you have certainly no one of their intelligence in your corner to quote, have you?

Einstein is rightly honored as one of history’s greatest physicist but it is important to understand that, even within his chosen field of expertise, Einstein was often just plain wrong. The cosmological constant is perhaps the best known example. Einstein was philosophically convinced that the universe had to be static (neither expanding nor contracting). Unwilling to accept that his own theory of general relatively allowed for a non-static universe, Einstein added a “fudge” factor to rule out non-static universes. Later, when observations clearly indicated that the universe was indeed expanding, Einstein admitted his mistake and removed the fudge factor.

In a similar fashion, Einstein also opposed the concept of quantum physics not on the basis of scientific observation but rather on the basis of philosophy. The famous “God does not roll dice” hypotheses. Einstein spent what could have been very productive decades of his life trying to find a scientific alternative to quantum mechanics but ultimately failed.

We can therefore conclude that while Einstein was indeed a very smart person, there is no particular reasons to accept his philosophical opinions as being accurate.

 

[itinerant1]

Do you, as a Catholic, have a serious problem with the intelligent design of the universe and everything in it?

Greetings, Charlemagne II. There is a need here for clarification of the issues being discussed. I never denied that the universe is intelligently designed. In fact, in my previous post I clearly affirmed that it is designed and orderly. Design and order are what makes science possible. In other words, science presupposes design and order. So, why have you asked whether I have a “serious problem with the intelligent design of the universe”? What is it that you did not understand about my post?

Then how is it that you are willing to let science posit the contrary, without proof, and get away with it? Do you believe there are two equally true, but contrary realities … one for religion and one for science?

Science does not posit the contrary. You are confused on this point. Science has as its proper subject matter, phenomenal reality; that which can be perceived, measured, weighed, and so on. Natural science cannot address the question of whether the universe is intelligently designed. Design refers to a level of causality that is beyond the scope and competence of the natural sciences. If a scientist asserts that the universe is intelligently designed, or, if he denies that it is so, he is not speaking as a scientist. He is speaking as a man or as a philosopher; not as a scientist. Of course, he may be confusing his personal ideology with his science, and wrongly believe that his science proves or disproves a designer or creator. Many Darwinists confuse their ideology with evolutionary science. You have assumed the same confusion as your next quote illustrates.

How logical is that? Why are you, as a C atholic, so willing to deny that there is any scientific evidence possible of God’s designing intellect, when non-Catholics like Newton, Darwin, and Einstein could see intelligent design all over the place?

Traditional Catholic philosophy maintains that the natural sciences cannot provide evidence for God and design. It is a subject matter proper to philosophy and theology. Again, a scientist may assert the existence of intelligent design, but he does not do so as a scientist, per se. One can be scientifically illiterate and see that the cosmos is the handiwork of God. To say there is “scientific evidence” for an Intelligent Designer puts one in opposition to sound Catholic philosophy and the mind of the Church on this subject.

And abiogenesis by chance assumes chance without proof. Is that science? Show me the definitive publication that won a Nobel award for proving abiogenesis by chance.

You can’t. What constantly grabs me is that the defenders of abiogenesis by chance never demand of themselves the same proof that they demand of ID. And this when Intelligent Design is far better known and recognized in science than chance.

That life originated strictly by chance and the random activities of matter is not a scientific notion. It is a philosophical assumption often confused as scientific speculation. Actually, what we are talking about is metaphysics; a metaphysical vision. T. H. Huxley acknowledged that abiogenesis involves a metaphysical vision. He called it a “sort of philosophical faith”.

You sound contemptutous of “rank” philosophy. Are you also contemptuous of the philosophy of science?

I fail to see your point here, assuming you have one.

 

[anon50111284]

Thread has reached the 1,000 post limit.

THREAD CLOSED

Posts over the 1,000 post limit have been moved to a [thread=354428]continuation thread[/thread]: