Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Great point. I think people are more distant from nature lately and they don’t actually go outside to look at things. When you say “unlikely” – that’s the key point. We take it for granted that plants not only feed animals as food, but provide oxygen. Plus there are trees. Why would trees provide the incredibly useful material called “wood” for so many building usages – and paper, and sap and fuel – and how they contribute to the cycle of nature in the forest? Leaves creating a “floor”, which feeds organisms in the soil which feed birds and animals and plants, which support the growth of trees …

The reason is that the luxuries of life don’t fit into the utilitarian scheme of things! Life is supposed to be ruthlessly geared solely to overcoming obstacles to survival - as if it is supremely valuable - but of course all values are illusions.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I would like to ask a question before I go out.

Another planet was sited and although life cannot be determined its appearing to have many agreeable features which would be necessary. This I think demonstrates that others could possibly be out there which would be able. I understand that gravity is not required in exact measure to earth in force as well other non exact choosy particulars which becomes interesting in view of what we know in survival. Some asteroids are carnying intriguing payloads.

So…lets say in a million years a planet in close range of a suitable sun lines itself up.

Are you guys saying that there would be no nature emerging in harmony as we see it…and consciousness would not come about “without” a specific time and decision from the Creator to press a few “must buttons” for the ball to get rolling?

The comments on ego were interesting.

Noticed this note:

Atomic particles don’t want or need to survive. They don’t even need to form molecules. Living organisms are reducible (supposedly) to same inert, unintelligent particles. The desire to survive, the struggle to survive, even the sacrifices animals make to find a mate and reproduce (salmon swimming upstream to their spawning grounds, etc) – cannot find its origin in purposeless atomic matter.

When a living organism dies, it just becomes non-living matter. Why would there be any struggle to avoid that consequence? Wouldn’t non-living matter “want” to remain what it is and not have to go through the struggle for survival?

Continuing…

If thats true and there are no other influence’s which these events effect, it seems to me there is very little design going on. So the initiative in support for design is now bringing crucial building blocks to the table and saying look there is no design and leaving out environmental significance. I’m not an expert but it seems to me there are some things missing in the story and I’m trying to piece the idea together.

 

[prodigalson2011]

You mentioned Elitism previously. It’s common to find people who think they’re more special than all the rest of the human race. They think they’re more intelligent, and the rest of humanity is “ignorant and lazy”. We find that in the sinful attitude of eugenicists – “useless” people are condemned.

In the Catholic view, we are called to love those who are underprivileged. We’re taught not to proclaim ourselves as being greater than others. Plus, we have the example of Jesus Himself – he became the “lowest of men” – condemned, insulted, belittled …

He did that for a reason. It’s all about loving others, and learning some humility.

The Nazi’s wanted a super-race. But God has created many people who are weak and suffering – in order to teach us how to care for one another. The “fittest” of the race do not need help (or so they think) – they won’t find themselves helpless and dependent, severely in need.

The gifts of intelligence and energy and health that we’re given are so profound, that many get confused and think they deserve those gifts. They think they’re the elite, special humans – as if they created those gifts themselves.

At the very least, we see people around us who are weak and disabled to have some gratitude for the gifts we have.

Contempt for humanity is actually widespread in academia and intellectual culture today.

A thousand amens, Reggie!

It’s quickly becoming the attitude du jour of our culture.

 

[reggieM]

I would like to ask a question before I go out.

Another planet was sited and although life cannot be determined its appearing to have many agreeable features which would be necessary. This I think demonstrates that others could possibly be out there which would be able. I understand that gravity is not required in exact measure to earth in force as well other non exact choosy particulars which becomes interesting in view of what we know in survival. Some asteroids are carnying intriguing payloads.

So…lets say in a million years a planet in close range of a suitable sun lines itself up.

Are you guys saying that there would be no nature emerging in harmony as we see it…and consciousness would not come about “without” a specific time and decision from the Creator to press a few “must buttons” for the ball to get rolling?

Well, there’s a challenge. Forget about a planet where conditions are correct – go to a laboratory where you can custom-**design **and modify conditions to exactly what you want. Then, take inert lifeless elements of whatever sort. Then, don’t even use the randomness that would necessarily take place on the surface of a planet, but instead, design (again) whatever kind of mechanism that can combine and synthesize those elements.

Now, see if life emerges from your primal soup of non-living chemicals. Origin of life researchers have been trying that for decades. But it really doesn’t work.
Then, consider that a barren planet is not a laboratory where you can put all of the most ideal chemicals in the ideal situations to, supposedly, form life.

Plus, you’ve already assumed that the planet will have all the many conditions that make life possible on earth.

What you’re offering is not a plausible scenario. That’s why we see design as the most reasonable solution.

If thats true and there are no other influence’s which these events effect, it seems to me there is very little design going on.

On the contrary – it all speaks of design and purpose. Blind, unintelligent matter does not form itself into specified, complex functioning systems. But we know that design can do that.

So the initiative in support for design is now bringing crucial building blocks to the table and saying look there is no design and leaving out environmental significance.

We’re questioning the idea that those are the sole building blocks. The claim is that everything came from inert matter. There is no mechanism that creates life out of non-life. Again, the question was – how could the desire to survive come from non-living matter? The desire to survive is directed towards a purpose – sustaining life. So again, how does a widespread, universal purpose emerge from that which is unintelligent and lacking purpose?

I’m not an expert but it seems to me there are some things missing in the story and I’m trying to piece the idea together.

You’re trying to reconcile what you’ve been taught about evolution with these challenges that, perhaps, you haven’t seen before. The materialist claim is that there is no evidence of design at all to be observed in nature. Supposedly, through random chance mutations and natural selection, all of the biosphere on earth developed from simple molecules to what we see today. That is the no-design, or anti-design view. But it doesn’t line up with what we actually observe in nature and in life (especially in human life).

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Well, there’s a challenge. Forget about a planet where conditions are correct – go to a laboratory where you can custom-**design **and modify conditions to exactly what you want. Then, take inert lifeless elements of whatever sort. Then, don’t even use the randomness that would necessarily take place on the surface of a planet, but instead, design (again) whatever kind of mechanism that can combine and synthesize those elements

I’m beginning to understand this viewpoint and surprised because ever since I was a kid (Catholic) I never thought things came about this way and still don’t…The lab would be the last place for the test I think because all the necessary preparation for life was in a very hot cooling earth as I understand. Its almost like saying the Creator waved his hand across the horizon and life came about. If this is true what about all the billion years preparing the way, the moon, the solar system itself making it possible…the sun we have…everything just right requiring the waving hand of God each step of the way. For my thinking these are limitations from the outset. I want it known this isn’t really a big deal to me because lets face it , the theist position is not implicated one way or another…I don’t like throwing the cards in on an idea which is only been in research for 50 years. The first billion years on earth was so hot there was no water apparently. These realities were obviously crucial in allowing the development of what we have today…so why even bother with interruptions using a God figure where there appears to be a missing link…? Not trying to be difficult but the way I see it, the unfolding nature of life a thing which we attribute to ourselves, nature, stable consequence, everything is any thing but apart from the whole development of itself …Its not only plausible it is expected…like the boson they recently suspected…all the evidence shows .

On the contrary – it all speaks of design and purpose. Blind, unintelligent matter does not form itself into specified, complex functioning systems. But we know that design can do that.

We’re questioning the idea that those are the sole building blocks. The claim is that everything came from inert matter. There is no mechanism that creates life out of non-life. Again, the question was – how could the desire to survive come from non-living matter? The desire to survive is directed towards a purpose – sustaining life. So again, how does a widespread, universal purpose emerge from that which is unintelligent and lacking purpose?

I’m not arguing this, what Im trying to figure out is how others believe things came about…as in God waving his hand over the earth.

You’re trying to reconcile what you’ve been taught about evolution with these challenges that, perhaps, you haven’t seen before. The materialist claim is that there is no evidence of design at all to be observed in nature. Supposedly, through random chance mutations and natural selection, all of the biosphere on earth developed from simple molecules to what we see today. That is the no-design, or anti-design view. But it doesn’t line up with what we actually observe in nature and in life (especially in human life).

I’m not a materialist. I simply don’t think this approach is reasonable unless…there was evidence of earth going from a chunk of desert or something to a wonderful water flowing thin for animal and therefore human life…but this is anything but the case

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Well, there’s a challenge. Forget about a planet where conditions are correct – go to a laboratory where you can custom-**design **and modify conditions to exactly what you want. Then, take inert lifeless elements of whatever sort. Then, don’t even use the randomness that would necessarily take place on the surface of a planet, but instead, design (again) whatever kind of mechanism that can combine and synthesize those elements.

Now, see if life emerges from your primal soup of non-living chemicals. Origin of life researchers have been trying that for decades. But it really doesn’t work.
Then, consider that a barren planet is not a laboratory where you can put all of the most ideal chemicals in the ideal situations to, supposedly, form life.

Plus, you’ve already assumed that the planet will have all the many conditions that make life possible on earth.

What you’re offering is not a plausible scenario. That’s why we see design as the most reasonable solution.

On the contrary – it all speaks of design and purpose. Blind, unintelligent matter does not form itself into specified, complex functioning systems. But we know that design can do that.

We’re questioning the idea that those are the sole building blocks. The claim is that everything came from inert matter. There is no mechanism that creates life out of non-life. Again, the question was – how could the desire to survive come from non-living matter? The desire to survive is directed towards a purpose – sustaining life. So again, how does a widespread, universal purpose emerge from that which is unintelligent and lacking purpose?

You’re trying to reconcile what you’ve been taught about evolution with these challenges that, perhaps, you haven’t seen before. The materialist claim is that there is no evidence of design at all to be observed in nature. Supposedly, through random chance mutations and natural selection, all of the biosphere on earth developed from simple molecules to what we see today. That is the no-design, or anti-design view. But it doesn’t line up with what we actually observe in nature and in life (especially in human life).

I’m beginning to understand this viewpoint and surprised because ever since I was a kid (Catholic) I never thought things came about this way and still don’t…The lab would be the last place for the test I think because all the necessary preparation for life was in a very hot cooling earth as I understand. Its almost like saying the Creator waved his hand across the horizon and life came about. If this is true what about all the billion years preparing the way, the moon, the solar system itself making it possible…the sun we have…everything just right requiring the waving hand of God “each” step of the way, and if not, why not.

For my thinking these are limitations from the outset & research for 50 years only. The first billion years on earth was so hot there was no water apparently. These realities were obviously crucial in allowing the development of what we have today…so why even bother with interruptions using a God figure where there appears to be only a missing link which is expected to be explainable …? ( in a natural way…not contrived, billions of years as I was mentioning with the cooling period.

Not trying to be difficult but the way I see it, the unfolding nature of life a thing which we attribute to ourselves, nature, stable consequence, and all virtually known is anything but apart from the whole development of itself …Its not only plausible it seems expected.

Not arguing this, what Im trying to figure out is how others believe things came about…as in God waving his hand over the earth.

Not a materialist. I simply don’t think this approach is reasonable unless…there was evidence of earth going from a chunk of desert or something to a wonderful water flowing thing for animal and human life…but this is anything but the case. Its seems more of a scientific study for now without any solid evidence for making declarations. I have absolutely no interest in trying to argue or justify any thinking…and really not that interested in this particular approach to design-order ect…because I have my own ideas about design…anyway thanks for taking the time, now I understand the sketch of God being considered…thats what I was trying to figure out.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m beginning to understand this viewpoint and surprised because ever since I was a kid (Catholic) I never thought things came about this way and still don’t…The lab would be the last place for the test I think because all the necessary preparation for life was in a very hot cooling earth as I understand. Its almost like saying the Creator waved his hand across the horizon and life came about. If this is true what about all the billion years preparing the way, the moon, the solar system itself making it possible…the sun we have…everything just right requiring the waving hand of God “each” step of the way, and if not, why not.

For my thinking these are limitations from the outset & research for 50 years only. The first billion years on earth was so hot there was no water apparently. These realities were obviously crucial in allowing the development of what we have today…so why even bother with interruptions using a God figure where there appears to be only a missing link which is expected to be explainable …? ( in a natural way…not contrived, billions of years as I was mentioning with the cooling period.

Not trying to be difficult but the way I see it, the unfolding nature of life a thing which we attribute to ourselves, nature, stable consequence, and all virtually known is anything but apart from the whole development of itself …Its not only plausible it seems expected.

Not arguing this, what Im trying to figure out is how others believe things came about…as in God waving his hand over the earth.

Not a materialist. I simply don’t think this approach is reasonable unless…there was evidence of earth going from a chunk of desert or something to a wonderful water flowing thing for animal and human life…but this is anything but the case. Its seems more of a scientific study for now without any solid evidence for making declarations. I have absolutely no interest in trying to argue or justify any thinking…and really not that interested in this particular approach to design-order ect…because I have my own ideas about design…anyway thanks for taking the time, now I understand the sketch of God being considered…thats what I was trying to figure out.

Another interesting point to note is that there is a scientific consensus that agrees that life appears too early in geological history to have begun naturally on Earth, leading many prominent naturalists, Fred Hoyle and Richard Dawkins among them, to entertain the idea that life might have been “seeded” here by aliens. The problem is that the math shows that not only could life not have developed here naturally, but most certainly that it could not have evolved anywhere else in the universe at that time either, especially to the extent that it would be able to travel to other planets and seed it there!

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Another interesting point to note is that there is a scientific consensus that agrees that life appears too early in geological history to have begun naturally on Earth, leading many prominent naturalists, Fred Hoyle and Richard Dawkins among them, to entertain the idea that life might have been “seeded” here by aliens. The problem is that the math shows that not only could life not have developed here naturally, but most certainly that it could not have evolved anywhere else in the universe at that time either, especially to the extent that it would be able to travel to other planets and seed it there!

Thanks for this very interesting information…much appreciated . Looks like the experts can’t figure out for sure how everything came about.
You guys could be right, I obviously don’t know. I could start explaining more reasons for what I think but don’t want to start bugging people about how they see things in a subject that experts could argue about for a very long time. Good to hear these ideas

 

[Sister_Terese]

Welcome to the Forum, Sister – it’s a blessing to have you with us! I’m going to take a wild guess that you’re a daughter of St. Dominic … ??

Tony is too modest to agree but he should be writing the books we’d want to read. At least we get to read his wisdom here.

Here’s a good book on the mind and materialism:

Why Us? James Le Fanu – a physician and scientist gives a devastating and very beautifully written critique of materialism especially regarding the mind and consciousness. Dr. Le Fanu has a subtle and deep understanding of how materialism basically destroys reason and human nature itself.

Reggie: Thanks for the warm welcome! I thought I might have broken a rule by posting about evolution vs. design/creation. I just love this thread!

For many years in my youth and young adult, I was educated by Dominicans sisters and prayed to become one. I contacted a number of Dominican groups, but God had other plans. I am a Benedictine. But, I know the Dominican Sisters of Mary as they live right down the street from us. Great group of sisters! I also taught in their schools for a number of years. Their community is growing by leaps and bounds!

 

[tonyrey]

Sometimes we become so immersed in details it’s good to stand back and contemplate the panorama (of reality):

1. Things exist.
2. There is no obvious explanation for their existence.
3. They need not exist.
4. It is unreasonable not to search for an explanation.
5. But what is an “explanation”?
6. An explanation increases our understanding.
7. What do we understand to begin with?
8. Nothing!
9. But if we understand nothing we cannot understand anything!
10. If we cannot understand anything we are wasting our time and energy!
11. To believe we understand nothing is self-contradictory.
12. If we cannot understand anything we cannot understand that we understand nothing!
13. Therefore we understand something!
14. How do we understand something?
15. By using our power of understanding!
16. How can we be sure our power of understanding is reliable?
17. We have proved our power of understanding is indispensable.
18. The success of science is further evidence that our power of understanding is reliable.
19. What else can we prove?
20. That we exist.
21. How do we exist?
22. We don’t understand how we exist!
23. Then how can we be sure we exist?
24. Because our power of understanding cannot exist by itself.
25. How can we be sure our power of understanding cannot exist by itself?
26. Because we have no experience of anything that exists by itself.
27. We also know we are responsible for the success of science.
28. What are we?
29. We don’t know!
30. Don’t we know anything about what we are?

To be continued…

My aim in this post is to show the fundamental reality of our power of understanding.

 

[Gaber]

Sometimes we become so immersed in details it’s good to stand back and contemplate the panorama (of reality):

If one can do that, yes!

(snip)

My aim in this post is to show the fundamental reality of our power of understanding.

In that case why are you proceeding from “Cogito ergo sum,” when that is backwards from the actual fundamental reality that “I am, therefor I as part of my manifestation I can appear to think.?” So as you are presenting it, you are proceeding from the lesser to the greater and assume that the lesser contains the greater. I’d like to hear how that works for you.

 

[tonyrey]

In that case why are you proceeding from “Cogito ergo sum,” when that is backwards from the actual fundamental reality that “I am, therefor I as part of my manifestation I can appear to think.?”

The statements of persons who are not thinking are of dubious value.

So as you are presenting it, you are proceeding from the lesser to the greater and assume that the lesser contains the greater. I’d like to hear how that works for you.

The separation of a person and a person’s thoughts is arbitrary and requires justification.

 

[Gaber]

The statements of persons who are not thinking are of dubious value.

Of which there are none, save for degrees and kinds. So that’s moot and rather a frivolous thing to say.

The separation of a person and a person’s thoughts is arbitrary and requires justification.

There is no separation of person and thought, as that is what constitutes person. In the same specious way you tried to red herring me by falsely claiming that I deny reason, you now speciously attempt to claim I deny thought. This is consistent with your failure to engage with any seriousness any point I’ve made, any references I’ve provided, or any thought experiment I’ve proposed.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Number 4 is the stickler…

1. It is unreasonable not to search for an explanation.

If this is so…then how come Jesus maintained that we must become as children to enter the Kingdom…? ( this is the becoming directive

I propose that children naturally know there is a governing reality allowing meaning , purpose and so on in existence… and do not need to reload hope…they are full of natural hope. Lack of question, lack of search is the reasonable and expresses the whole essence of being not without soul… I think manifistation and experience are part of exploring…or living-becoming within the idea…but explanation is detached I think as a foundation in the reasoning end of it…contradictory as a foundation

 

[FurtherSuntime]

So I’m not judging people ok…? Part of exploring is the idea of an explanation…but the whole list evolving from the foundation of requiring an explanation in the context " it is unreasonable to not search for explanation" I think is more or less an overly hasty kick at the cat. Trying to put everything in a box seems to be mans thing. Thats all Im saying. I think everyone thinks differently and thats how things progress. So no biggy.
But I’m firm on the idea within the thought , for myself anyway…as an opinion

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Heres the way I see this “part” of the issue…( relative to some possible perspective).A tree gets planted and a couple of years later something strange to the tree happens, say a pear. Now that pear is weird or strange to the tree…doesn’t look or appear to be naturally from the tree. But the bottom line is that no-one came along in the night and put the pears on the tree. Not only plain and simple but everywhere in everything in many different ways. Ok…thats it for me on this one

 

[tonyrey]

The statements of persons who are not thinking are of dubious value.

It is implied by your question:

In that case why are you proceeding from “Cogito ergo sum,” when that is backwards from the actual fundamental reality that “I am, therefor I as part of my manifestation I can **appear **to think.?”

“appear” suggests that you may not be thinking!

There is no separation of person and thought, as that is what constitutes person.

It is implied by your statement:

So as you are presenting it, you are proceeding from the lesser to the greater and assume that the lesser contains the greater.

“lesser” and “greater” suggest that thought is separable from a person whereas I stated explicitly:

My aim in this post is to show the fundamental reality of **our **power of understanding.

I also went on to say:

1. Then how can we be sure we exist?
2. Because our power of understanding cannot exist by itself.
3. How can we be sure our power of understanding cannot exist by itself?
4. Because we have no experience of anything that exists by itself.
5. We also know we are responsible for the success of science.

 

[tonyrey]

Number 4 is the stickler…

1. It is unreasonable not to search for an explanation.

If this is so…then how come Jesus maintained that we must become as children to enter the Kingdom…? ( this is the becoming directive

I propose that children naturally know there is a governing reality allowing meaning , purpose and so on in existence… and do not need to reload hope…they are full of natural hope. Lack of question, lack of search is the reasonable and expresses the whole essence of being not without soul… I think manifistation and experience are part of exploring…or living-becoming within the idea…but explanation is detached I think as a foundation in the reasoning end of it…contradictory as a foundation

There are many people who reject both the teaching of Jesus and also the belief that “children naturally know there is a governing reality allowing meaning and purpose”. I pointed out that our power of understanding is indispensable and that the success of science is further evidence that our power of understanding is reliable.

 

[tonyrey]

So I’m not judging people ok…? Part of exploring is the idea of an explanation…but the whole list evolving from the foundation of requiring an explanation in the context " it is unreasonable to not search for explanation" I think is more or less an overly hasty kick at the cat. Trying to put everything in a box seems to be mans thing. Thats all Im saying. I think everyone thinks differently and thats how things progress. So no biggy.
But I’m firm on the idea within the thought , for myself anyway…as an opinion

If you reject explanations there is no point in participating in a **rational **discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

Heres the way I see this “part” of the issue…( relative to some possible perspective).A tree gets planted and a couple of years later something strange to the tree happens, say a pear. Now that pear is weird or strange to the tree…doesn’t look or appear to be naturally from the tree. But the bottom line is that no-one came along in the night and put the pears on the tree. Not only plain and simple but everywhere in everything in many different ways. Ok…thats it for me on this one

We are not entitled to assume all events occur “naturally”…