One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Teleological Argument inherently requires inductive reasoning to justify its premise. That has always been known and it is why it has always been seen as one of the ‘weaker’ arguments as deductive arguments give certainty, and inductive arguments give probability. There are numerous forms of the argument (the classical Teleological & ID being the ones you have mentioned) however don’t believe that ID is actually the same as the classical argument. The classical argument rested on an entirely different metaphysical framework (Aristotelian vs. Cartesian) which obviously give a greatly different understanding of the data we are seeing.

The classical argument looks to the evidence and sees ‘purpose’ which entails design, the modern ID see a mechanism that needs outside interference every now and then, which will run into obvious problems with the principle of parsimony. The formers metaphysical framework actually works well for the argument it is making, the latter is on much shakier ground.

First in the assumption of Cartesian Dualism and the metaphysical assumptions that makes puts it on dodgy ground rationally, his substance dualism is more written as a rejection of scholastic philosophy than any thorough refutation. We have no reason to concede a metaphysical framework that entails absurdity, when the classical metaphysics the Church has embraced in Aquinas have not been refuted.
Second: it is going to run into problems with the Divine Immutability, as it implies change in the Divine Will in creation.

I think you attribute too much to ID. Firstly, ID is pretty limited in it’s ambitions. If ID is correct all it shows is a “designer”. Not the God of philosophy much less the God of Abraham and Moses. The virtue of ID is it’s relative simplicity, assuming the fundamental argument is sound, that design can be inferred from complexity. But if design cannot be inferred from complexity, I’m stumped as to how purpose can be inferred.

To your second point, this does not follow at all. As I noted in the bit you quoted, ID will only succeed if God intended to show his hand. This does not imply mutabilty of will, as if he said, “oops, I need to make this last minute adjustment”. I think any theist will recognize that God is perfectly able to create a universe that hides his existence to whatever degree he seeks.

 

[Skeptic92]

I think you attribute too much to ID. Firstly, ID is pretty limited in it’s ambitions. If ID is correct all it shows is a “designer”. Not the God of philosophy much less the God of Abraham and Moses. The virtue of ID is it’s relative simplicity, assuming the fundamental argument is sound, that design can be inferred from complexity. But if design cannot be inferred from complexity, I’m stumped as to how purpose can be inferred.

To your second point, this does not follow at all. As I noted in the bit you quoted, ID will only succeed if God intended to show his hand. This does not imply mutabilty of will, as if he said, “oops, I need to make this last minute adjustment”. I think any theist will recognize that God is perfectly able to create a universe that hides his existence to whatever degree he seeks.

To a designing intellect is all the classical teleological argument will point towards, but now think of the difference between purpose and design. Purpose implies a guiding ‘force’ that give inherently meaningless matter, intentional motion in how it behaves. Whilst design is far more mechanistic, owing to the Cartesian assumption of the extended thing/matter. In the ID argument God is far more a watchmaker, not the eternal sustainer of existence, which is inherently problematic due to its philosophical framework being problematic.

(1) This is going to run into the interaction problem, a problem that has all but killed Cartesian Dualism as it descends into absurdity.
(2) Are we justified in the assumption that two substances exist in unity within the human being, and that ‘nature’ is inherently only physical?
(3) a follow on: are we justified in the assumption that nature is composed of purely mechanistic matter? or does this meaningless and purposeless matter seem to have acted in a manner that would imply a purpose?

You then have to justify your assumptions within the Philosophy of Mind, the Cartesian notion of body and soul is highly flawed: one of the key areas that the Cartesian assumptions are being critiqued and abandoned.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The classical argument looks to the evidence and sees ‘purpose’ which entails design, the modern ID see a mechanism that needs outside interference every now and then, which will run into obvious problems with the principle of parsimony. The formers metaphysical framework actually works well for the argument it is making, the latter is on much shakier ground.

Actually this is a misinterpretation of the ID argument. The logic isn’t that the mechanism “needs” outside interference - that hasn’t been established. The argument is that random mutation acted on by natural selection is insufficient to explain the cellular functions necessary to produce the viable genetic code capable of replicating, which would had to have been present before natural selection could have any effect.

IDers propose that since neoDarwinism does not adequately explain genetic code, other alternative explanations need to, at least, be entertained. Since genetic code is very similar to sophisticated computer code and that kind of coding is only ever known to have been produced by intelligence, then some form of intelligence ought to be investigated, as the explanation for genetic code, by viable scientific methods.

There is no proposed direct argument or inference to God. That step is assumed by individuals (several on this thread, in fact) who have never bothered to actually read the argument as best expounded by Stephen Meyer.

That fact, by the way - i.e., that those on this thread who dismiss Meyer’s case for ID have never actually read his book or are in any way familiar with his work - has been freely and proudly admitted by the two most vociferous critics of the work, who obviously have no idea what the arguments even claim. AND yet they are quite content to dismiss the evidence without even a hearing because (they claim) it can’t be counted since it argues for God, which it does ONLY in their own understanding, and NOT actually by the most serious proponents of the case for ID.

THAT says a great deal about the logical habits of these resident evolutionists, though it seems a waste of breath and keystrokes to mention again.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You then have to justify your assumptions within the Philosophy of Mind, the Cartesian notion of body and soul is highly flawed: one of the key areas that the Cartesian assumptions are being critiqued and abandoned.

Yes, but YOU - as a conscious being - still have the burden of explaining how YOU can interact with physical reality despite the fact that there is no proof that YOU (the conscious you, that is) are entirely physical. There remains a “hard problem” of consciousness that hasn’t been solved despite that it does not necessarily entail Cartesian dualism.

Intelligence obviously DOES act on physical reality. We use intelligence all the time to change physical reality. There is no need to invoke dualism to solve the problem, but the problem remains, nonetheless. How intelligence changes physical reality? is very much a live question.

 

[edwest2]

I think you attribute too much to ID. Firstly, ID is pretty limited in it’s ambitions. If ID is correct all it shows is a “designer”. Not the God of philosophy much less the God of Abraham and Moses. The virtue of ID is it’s relative simplicity, assuming the fundamental argument is sound, that design can be inferred from complexity. But if design cannot be inferred from complexity, I’m stumped as to how purpose can be inferred.

To your second point, this does not follow at all. As I noted in the bit you quoted, ID will only succeed if God intended to show his hand. This does not imply mutabilty of will, as if he said, “oops, I need to make this last minute adjustment”. I think any theist will recognize that God is perfectly able to create a universe that hides his existence to whatever degree he seeks.

I’m stumped as to how blind, unguided chance - undirected and mindless - just stumbled onto a useful direction.

Just get 10,000 monkeys in a room with typewriters and they’ll crank out an entire play by Shakespeare. But thanks to the internet, we know that can’t happen either.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skeptic92]

Yes, but YOU - as a conscious being - still have the burden of explaining how YOU can interact with physical reality despite the fact that there is no proof that YOU (the conscious you, that is) are entirely physical. There remains a “hard problem” of consciousness that hasn’t been solved despite that it does not necessarily entail Cartesian dualism.

Intelligence obviously DOES act on physical reality. We use intelligence all the time to change physical reality. There is no need to invoke dualism to solve the problem, but the problem remains, nonetheless. How intelligence changes physical reality? is very much a live question.

There are a few schools of dualism that are gaining ground due to using a different metaphysical framework to the Cartesian Materialists and Dualists.

Now I’ll critique what you have just said: do you realise that you are presupposing Cartesian Dualism? Please demonstrate that the I is not the substantial me that is typing on the keyboard. Assuming that somehow my ‘consciousness’ is the centre of self is inherently problematic and implies solipsism, and the Cartesian metaphysics.

You’ve also missed the other 3 criticisms, and the rest scattered throughout my posts. Whilst committing an Ad hominem attack whilst logically criticising the actions of other posters, you really shouldn’t yourself make a fallacious argument.

 

[buffalo]

I’m stumped as to how blind, unguided chance - undirected and mindless - just stumbled onto a useful direction.

Just get 10,000 monkeys in a room with typewriters and they’ll crank out an entire play by Shakespeare. But thanks to the internet, we know that can’t happen either.

Peace,
Ed

It is not plausible that it did.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I’m stumped as to how blind, unguided chance - undirected and mindless - just stumbled onto a useful direction.

Just get 10,000 monkeys in a room with typewriters and they’ll crank out an entire play by Shakespeare. But thanks to the internet, we know that can’t happen either.

Creationists just can’t avoid logical fallacies, can they? This is over-simplification,
which can either leave out details, totally misrepresent an argument, or both even.

First off, UNDERSTAND, as far as our finite minds (I didn’t realize yours was infinite)
can tell, the process of evolution works by random mutation and natural selection.

Second, this as-far-as-science-can-tell “unguided chance” stumbled on many mistakes too
along the way. Not every mutation was successful, not every extinction of species came a-
bout by natural catastrophes, a lot of animals simply DIED OFF.

And your 10,000-Monkeys bit, TOTALLY not how evolution works, kind of a red-herring too.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

To a designing intellect is all the classical teleological argument will point towards, but now think of the difference between purpose and design. Purpose implies a guiding ‘force’ that give inherently meaningless matter, intentional motion in how it behaves. Whilst design is far more mechanistic, owing to the Cartesian assumption of the extended thing/matter. In the ID argument God is far more a watchmaker, not the eternal sustainer of existence, which is inherently problematic due to its philosophical framework being problematic.

There is nothing “mechanistic” about the ID designer. If proven, the nature of e designer would sximply be unknown from ID. You take that to be az problem as if we had nothing but ID to know God by. I see it as a virtue, a very modest ambition.

 

[buffalo]

Creationists just can’t avoid logical fallacies, can they? This is over-simplification,
which can either leave out details, totally misrepresent an argument, or both even.

First off, UNDERSTAND, as far as our finite minds (I didn’t realize yours was infinite)
can tell, the process of evolution works by random mutation and natural selection.

Second, this as-far-as-science-can-tell “unguided chance” stumbled on many mistakes too
along the way. Not every mutation was successful, not every extinction of species came a-
bout by natural catastrophes, a lot of animals simply DIED OFF.

And your 10,000-Monkeys bit, TOTALLY not how evolution works, kind of a red-herring too.

We have two issues:

NS is a conservative process not a creative one.
RM - DNA actively fights against it through several iterations.

 

[Skeptic92]

Creationists just can’t avoid logical fallacies, can they? This is over-simplification,
which can either leave out details, totally misrepresent an argument, or both even.

First off, UNDERSTAND, as far as our finite minds (I didn’t realize yours was infinite)
can tell, the process of evolution works by random mutation and natural selection.

Second, this as-far-as-science-can-tell “unguided chance” stumbled on many mistakes too
along the way. Not every mutation was successful, not every extinction of species came a-
bout by natural catastrophes, a lot of animals simply DIED OFF.

And your 10,000-Monkeys bit, TOTALLY not how evolution works, kind of a red-herring too.

I would counter that, but evolutionary science isn’t how I usually defend the Teleological Argument- the Cosmological Constants are far more useful for that. I would however postulate that even Evolution can be interpreted to imply purpose to the actions of inherently purposeless matter. I’m in full agreement however that the previous argument was essentially a strawman, just not that Evolution can’t be used to defend the Teleological Argument. We’d be better placed however to look to contemporary cosmology rather than biology, the data is better suited to it and it is possible to stay up to date without reading a new paper every other week.

 

[Skeptic92]

There is nothing “mechanistic” about the ID designer. If proven, the nature of e designer would sximply be unknown from ID. You take that to be az problem as if we had nothing but ID to know God by. I see it as a virtue, a very modest ambition.

Read Again: I said an inherent mechanistic nature to matter which is inherently problematic. Especially from a Christian view point given the nature of the Metaphysics implied by Scripture.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

We have two issues:

NS is a conservative process not a creative one.
RM - DNA actively fights against it through several iterations.

I got DNA, but can you translate the other initials please.

 

[buffalo]

I got DNA, but can you translate the other initials please.

Natural Selection
Random Mutation

 

[lightbeamrider]

Allow me to add the following about critics of ID:

evolutionnews.org/2014/01/we_dont_have_to081021.html

A bit disturbing.

Peace,
Ed

What is disturbing is the totalitarian nature of this alleged movement in education. Dissent is not allowed and if anybody voices doubt punishment is forthcoming. Take the case of Caroline Crocker in this interview.

thebestschools.org/blog/2011/11/03/caroline-crocker-aitse-interview/

I began to entertain “politically incorrect views” while I was studying for my PhD. Basically, I did not see how evolution by random mutation and natural selection could lead to the kind of intricate nanotechnology that I was seeing inside a cell. Aspects of evolutionary theory conflicted with what I knew of science. I’ve heard people say that eventually we will figure out how mistakes in copying lead to increased information, but that belief takes more faith than I have. I think that it might make more sense to just evaluate the scientific evidence and follow where it leads rather than try to fit the new evidence about the copious amounts of information found in cells into a theory that was suggested over 150 years ago when cells were thought to be simple blobs of protoplasm.

Seems the precedent is set and one has to wonder about the state of affairs 10 years from now.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Ah, okay, let me reinsert then…

Originally Posted by buffalo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif *
We have two issues:

Natural Selection is a conservative process not a creative one.
Random Mutation- DNA actively fights against it through several iterations.*

First on Natural Selection, what do you mean exactly by “conservative process not a creative one”?

Now Random Mutation, you believe DNA is infallible or perfect?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Read Again: I said an inherent mechanistic nature to matter which is inherently problematic. Especially from a Christian view point given the nature of the Metaphysics implied by Scripture.

No amount of rereading will rescue your complaint from irrelevance. ID makes a limited claim within the scientific domain by intent. Nothing in Scripture teaches us not to believe our own eyes which is essentially what science is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There are a few schools of dualism that are gaining ground due to using a different metaphysical framework to the Cartesian Materialists and Dualists.

Now I’ll critique what you have just said: do you realise that you are presupposing Cartesian Dualism? Please demonstrate that the I is not the substantial me that is typing on the keyboard. Assuming that somehow my ‘consciousness’ is the centre of self is inherently problematic and implies solipsism, and the Cartesian metaphysics.

You’ve also missed the other 3 criticisms, and the rest scattered throughout my posts. Whilst committing an Ad hominem attack whilst logically criticising the actions of other posters, you really shouldn’t yourself make a fallacious argument.

You can assume that consciousness implies Cartesian dualism, if you wish. I am under no such compulsion, but neither do I deny that consciousness is a real aspect of my experience. Consciousness need not imply solipsism nor Cartesian metaphysics yet it still does require explanation rather than denial. Materialism does not account for nor explain consciousness.

My alleged ad hominem “attack” on other posters was merely to state a simple matter of fact. They critique what they refuse to actually read but are content to deny that any counter argument is even necessary based upon the perceived character faults of “who” it is (i.e., “creationists”) making the argument, despite the fact that ID proponents like Meyer do not fit these posters’ own tightly defined meaning of “creationist.” That, my good sir, IS an ad hominem attack on ID proponents like Meyer. Pointing THAT fact out is NOT an ad hominem. You stand corrected.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let’s address these point by point, shall we?

(1) This is going to run into the interaction problem, a problem that has all but killed Cartesian Dualism as it descends into absurdity.

This is a claim, not an argument. The interaction problem IS a problem, but that is about all. The problem is that dualism cannot explain interaction, that doesn’t entail interaction is impossible or refuted.

(2) Are we justified in the assumption that two substances exist in unity within the human being, and that ‘nature’ is inherently only physical?

I am not clear what it is that you are getting at here. There is no need to assume two “substances,” in any case. Thomism, for example, posits potentiality and actuality. Matter is merely the “receptive capacity” that takes on form or actuality. For Thomas, substance IS the conjoining of form and matter. There is no need to posit two distinct essences or substances.

Perhaps a little refresher in Thomistic metaphysics might help. Pay special attention to 8 and 10.

I. Matter is not form, but really distinct from form. Prime matter is pure potency, mere receiving capacity. Without form, it can simply not exist.

1. Finite essence is not its own existence, but really distinct from that existence.

1. God alone, pure act, is His own existence. He is existence itself, unreceived and irreceivable. "Sum qui sum. "

1. In all created persons, personality is really distinct from existence. [1346]

1. God alone, existence itself, can have no accidents. Hence, by opposition, no created substance is immediately operative; it needs, in order to act, a super-added operative potency.

1. Form can be multiplied only by being received into matter. The principle of individuation is matter as preordained to this particular quantity.

1. The human soul is the sole form of the human body, since otherwise it would be, not substantial form, but accidental, and would not make the body one natural unity.

1. Matter, of itself, has neither existence nor cognoscibility. It becomes intelligible only by its relation to form.

1. The specific form of sense objects, since it is not matter, is potentially intelligible.

1. Immateriality is the root both of intelligibility and of intellectuality. [1347] The objectivity of our intellectual knowledge implies that there is in sense objects an intelligible element, distinct from matter, and the immateriality of the spirit is the source of intellectuality, the level of intellectuality corresponding to the level of immateriality.

Source: REALITY—A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P.
thesumma.info/reality/reality56.php

(3) a follow on: are we justified in the assumption that nature is composed of purely mechanistic matter? or does this meaningless and purposeless matter seem to have acted in a manner that would imply a purpose?

You then have to justify your assumptions within the Philosophy of Mind, the Cartesian notion of body and soul is highly flawed: one of the key areas that the Cartesian assumptions are being critiqued and abandoned.

Again, there is no need to posit matter and spirit. The physical is the conjoint of form and matter - act and potency. Genetic code is a means by which in"form"ation is carried forward in a material medium. ID could, well, be very amenable to a Thomistic or Aristotelian metaphysic. See #6 above.

Perhaps you should spend some time with Meyer.

This would be a good introduction…
youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs

This discussion of hylemorphic dualism by Edward Feser might also give you another perspective.

Ultimately, it seems you are the one assuming dualism and are using the Cartesian problem to try to collapse reality into materialism. I prefer to stay away from that morass.

 

[Skeptic92]

Let’s address these point by point, shall we?

This is a claim, not an argument. The interaction problem IS a problem, but that is about all. The problem is that dualism cannot explain interaction, that doesn’t entail interaction is impossible or refuted.

I am not clear what it is that you are getting at here. There is no need to assume two “substances,” in any case. Thomism, for example, posits potentiality and actuality. Matter is merely the “receptive capacity” that takes on form or actuality. For Thomas, substance IS the conjoining of form and matter. There is no need to posit two distinct essences or substances.

Perhaps a little refresher in Thomistic metaphysics might help. Pay special attention to 8 and 10.

Again, there is no need to posit matter and spirit. The physical is the conjoint of form and matter - act and potency. Genetic code is a means by which in"form"ation is carried forward in a material medium. ID could, well, be very amenable to a Thomistic or Aristotelian metaphysic. See #6 above.

Perhaps you should spend some time with Meyer.

This would be a good introduction…
youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs

This discussion of hylemorphic dualism by Edward Feser might also give you another perspective.

Ultimately, it seems you are the one assuming dualism and are using the Cartesian problem to try to collapse reality into materialism. I prefer to stay away from that morass.

I’m a Hylemorphic Dualist, I’ve wrote and presented papers on the subject. Within the Metaphysical assumptions of the Thomistic framework Intelligent Design doesn’t work as it is incoherent. Instead of assuming my position why didn’t you ask instead? In the way you are using concepts and terminology you are assuming substance dualism, as does Intelligent Design in taking the modern metaphysics. The classical Teleological Argument with its Aristotelian Metaphysics is incompatible with Intelligent Design, as they work off two entirely different framework.

Maybe you should spend some time with an Introduction to Philosophy, and read my posts much closer since you have demonstrated you are attacking me on nothing but a strawman.

Tip: There is a reason Philosophers like Kurr, Feser, Kenny, Leftow, Smith & McGrath have not supported Intelligent Design though they are Thomistic Philosophers: Thomists don’t believe the ID crowd have got it right, they are committed to a fallacious and flawed argument.