Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[prodigalson2011]

If I may, I’d like to recommend a book to everyone here: “The Science of God” by Gerald Schroeder, PhD. He’s an M.I.T. educated physicist who is also a practicing Jew well versed in the traditions of the Talmud and kabalists. Using the writings of the medieval kabalist Nahmanides as well as teachings of the Talmud, he shows how ancient Biblical interpretation predicted much of modern cosmology. For instance, Nahmonides explained that ancient Hebrew was written in such a way that individual characters of words contained different levels of information. For this reason, it was considered the most grievous crime for a scribe to alter the shape, position, etc. of even a single character of Scripture as it would result in the loss of literal layers of meaning. Nahmonides then (some time in the 1200s) goes on to lay out a cosmology of the universe that is almost exactly parallel to the Big Bang theory of today.

Most staggeringly, by bringing together the theory of relativity, time dilation and cosmic background radiation, he proceeds to show how the 6 days of Genesis and our modern cosmological history align. It is one of the most fascinating works I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading, and I’m not even halfway through it yet. No bones about it, I believe every defender of the faith should read it. I’m working on internalizing the details, myself.

 

[Sister_Terese]

I would really appreciate it if someone could please explain to me, in simple, layman’s terms, what points are being argued in the last 10-20 posts. I am a science teacher and the last 20+posts have me scratching my head. I have read many books on intelligent design (Behe, Dembrowski, Francis Collins, et al) as well as books on evolution vs creationism. I have to say that I pretty much followed everything I read. However, I haven’t a clue what you guys are talking about. I’ve tried, but as soon as I feel like I have a handle on the point, you lose me! I want to understand and learn from what you are saying. I am interested in this topic. Please know, I’m not criticizing. I’m just saying that for us little guys, please provide a little explanation on your points. Thanks!

 

[tonyrey]

I would really appreciate it if someone could please explain to me, in simple, layman’s terms, what points are being argued in the last 10-20 posts. I am a science teacher and the last 20+posts have me scratching my head. I have read many books on intelligent design (Behe, Dembrowski, Francis Collins, et al) as well as books on evolution vs creationism. I have to say that I pretty much followed everything I read. However, I haven’t a clue what you guys are talking about. I’ve tried, but as soon as I feel like I have a handle on the point, you lose me! I want to understand and learn from what you are saying. I am interested in this topic. Please know, I’m not criticizing. I’m just saying that for us little guys, please provide a little explanation on your points.

Sister Terese, if there is any particular point you don’t understand I’ll be delighted to explain how I interpret it.

 

[Sister_Terese]

Tonray: Thanks! I am so very confused by post #286. It seems very philosophical, which I’m not really sure is a good argument for or against ID. But, I have only a rudimentary grasp of philosophy. But the whole post is very confusing to me. Thanks for your help! God bless you!

 

[tonyrey]

I am so very confused by post #286. It seems very philosophical, which I’m not really sure is a good argument for or against ID. But, I have only a rudimentary grasp of philosophy. But the whole post is very confusing to me.

You’re not alone! Even after specialising in philosophy for many years I would not venture to interpret every statement - nor is it necessary. The upshot of the argument is:

Science invokes the proposition that the extra-mental world is real and is intelligible through our senses to a sufficient degree that we can build performative models of that extra-mental world.

In other words the cigarette lighter experiment (applying the flame to one’s skin) is compelling evidence that material objects are real. Science is successful because our knowledge of the outside world is reliable.

So far so good. But then science is claimed to be superior to every other form of knowledge! This is obviously false because we have direct knowledge of our thoughts and feelings. People have doubted there is an outer world but they cannot doubt their inner world - unless they are mentally unbalanced!

Conclusion:

“God, an immaterial being, created the world”, is not a necessary proposition. Neither is it a proposition that can be evaluated by science, or any objective criteria – “immaterial being” is not a concept we have experience with, not a concept with a referent in the extra-mental world.

(In other words belief in God is not justified to the same extent as belief in the material world.) The fatal flaw in this argument is that the outer world is put before our inner worlds. We constantly have experience of “immaterial being” because our minds are intangible. All our knowledge - like charity - begins at home!

Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are intangible and require explanation. So do our minds. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that everything is designed and created by one Supreme Being.

I hope that is clear but don’t hesitate to ask if you have any difficulty.

 

[reggieM]

If I may, I’d like to recommend a book to everyone here: “The Science of God” by Gerald Schroeder, PhD. He’s an M.I.T. educated physicist who is also a practicing Jew well versed in the traditions of the Talmud and kabalists. Using the writings of the medieval kabalist Nahmanides as well as teachings of the Talmud, he shows how ancient Biblical interpretation predicted much of modern cosmology. For instance, Nahmonides explained that ancient Hebrew was written in such a way that individual characters of words contained different levels of information. For this reason, it was considered the most grievous crime for a scribe to alter the shape, position, etc. of even a single character of Scripture as it would result in the loss of literal layers of meaning. Nahmonides then (some time in the 1200s) goes on to lay out a cosmology of the universe that is almost exactly parallel to the Big Bang theory of today.

Most staggeringly, by bringing together the theory of relativity, time dilation and cosmic background radiation, he proceeds to show how the 6 days of Genesis and our modern cosmological history align. It is one of the most fascinating works I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading, and I’m not even halfway through it yet. No bones about it, I believe every defender of the faith should read it. I’m working on internalizing the details, myself.

Thanks for this recommendation! I have seen the title around and I’ve been curious.
Now I know it’s a must-read.
I’ve been listening to some recorded lectures on scriptural research on the book of Genesis recently – and it has said something similar, although not nearly as detailed. Genesis gives a model for the structure of reality – as well as for all of salvation history through the New Testament – Adam and Eve are followed by the new Adam and new Eve.

 

[farpinho]

I would really appreciate it if someone could please explain to me, in simple, layman’s terms, what points are being argued in the last 10-20 posts. I am a science teacher and the last 20+posts have me scratching my head. I have read many books on intelligent design (Behe, Dembrowski, Francis Collins, et al) as well as books on evolution vs creationism. I have to say that I pretty much followed everything I read. However, I haven’t a clue what you guys are talking about. I’ve tried, but as soon as I feel like I have a handle on the point, you lose me! I want to understand and learn from what you are saying. I am interested in this topic. Please know, I’m not criticizing. I’m just saying that for us little guys, please provide a little explanation on your points. Thanks!

It feels to me that there are some parallel subjects going on in this single thread

 

[reggieM]

I would really appreciate it if someone could please explain to me, in simple, layman’s terms, what points are being argued in the last 10-20 posts. I am a science teacher and the last 20+posts have me scratching my head. I have read many books on intelligent design (Behe, Dembrowski, Francis Collins, et al) as well as books on evolution vs creationism. I have to say that I pretty much followed everything I read. However, I haven’t a clue what you guys are talking about. I’ve tried, but as soon as I feel like I have a handle on the point, you lose me! I want to understand and learn from what you are saying. I am interested in this topic. Please know, I’m not criticizing. I’m just saying that for us little guys, please provide a little explanation on your points. Thanks!

The topic gets confusing when we confront materialism with the design argument. Materialism reduces everything to one source: the material. So, at the beginning, there is matter (or atoms or particles) alone. Everything came from matter and everything is material.

From that starting point, it becomes very difficult to make distinctions.

There are two basic design arguments – one more philosophical, the other more scientific.

In the materialist view, everything begins with the simplest matter or atoms. These are all equal in value. They have no purpose, direction, meaning or design.

Even if atoms collect together to form molecules, they don’t know they are ordered to to that – and they don’t create their own ordering principles.

In the same way, atoms cannot disorder themselves because disorder implies that there is order. Chance requires the existence of order. If everything was chance, there would be no way to know that. If everything was chaos, there would be nothing to notice that it was all chaos.

If everything was material, there would be no way to distinguish the truth of that (since it requires the concept of non-material in order to have any distinction).

 

[reggieM]

Just to amplify a bit, Tony … and I know you can do much more:

So far so good. But then science is claimed to be superior to every other form of knowledge! This is obviously false because we have direct knowledge of our thoughts and feelings. People have doubted there is an outer world but they cannot doubt their inner world - unless they are mentally unbalanced!

True - because in order to doubt anything, you have to have an inner world. Plus, there has to be the possibility of non-truth. But if everything that is, is the material, then there can be no non-truth. There would only be existence. The material has no way of discerning or creating non-existence (or falsehood) for itself. Reason, however, can create concepts that do not relate to reality – and are thus false.

Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are intangible and require explanation. So do our minds. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that everything is designed and created by one Supreme Being.

In materialism, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are unnecessary. They are not explained by the material because matter has no need for them at all. They don’t add anything to matter and they are not properties of matter.

You can’t look at an atom and observe the property of truth or justice. There is no way to determine that one atom is better than another – in terms of materialism alone.

Good and better - refer to some purpose or design.

 

[Sister_Terese]

Just to amplify a bit, Tony … and I know you can do much more:

True - because in order to doubt anything, you have to have an inner world. Plus, there has to be the possibility of non-truth. But if everything that is, is the material, then there can be no non-truth. There would only be existence. The material has no way of discerning or creating non-existence (or falsehood) for itself. Reason, however, can create concepts that do not relate to reality – and are thus false.

In materialism, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are unnecessary. They are not explained by the material because matter has no need for them at all. They don’t add anything to matter and they are not properties of matter.

You can’t look at an atom and observe the property of truth or justice. There is no way to determine that one atom is better than another – in terms of materialism alone.

Good and better - refer to some purpose or design.

Wow…I’m trying to make sense out of all of this. I will attempt to respond, however. Everything that exists is made up of atoms. So, even though you cannot observe truth or justice in a single atom, together they make up all things, including humans. In humans we can very easily observe truth, goodness, freedom, justice, etc. Therefore, they are truth and are necessary. If the universe contained only single atoms floating around, then I could agree with what you are saying. Or, maybe that is exactly what you are saying! But, that is not the case. And Something had to give those atmos the properties to form every form of matter in the universe. I guess that doesn’t make much sense, but that is how I see it. We simply cannot isolate one from the other.
These posts sound very much like a logic class I took many moons ago! “…truth cannot be untruth, to exist means that I cannot not exist…” all that sort of stuff. Made me crazy, actually.

 

[tonyrey]

Wow…I’m trying to make sense out of all of this. I will attempt to respond, however. Everything that exists is made up of atoms. So, even though you cannot observe truth or justice in a single atom, together they make up all things, including humans. In humans we can very easily observe truth, goodness, freedom, justice, etc. Therefore, they are truth and are necessary. If the universe contained only single atoms floating around, then I could agree with what you are saying. Or, maybe that is exactly what you are saying! But, that is not the case. And Something had to give those atmos the properties to form every form of matter in the universe. I guess that doesn’t make much sense, but that is how I see it. We simply cannot isolate one from the other.
These posts sound very much like a logic class I took many moons ago! “…truth cannot be untruth, to exist means that I cannot not exist…” all that sort of stuff. Made me crazy, actually.

On the contrary it’s made you see sense (!) - assuming you didn’t know it intuitively already:

Something had to give those atoms **the properties to form every form of matter **in the universe.

Atomism splits everything into fragments without explaining how they came together as purposeful beings. Everything is made of atoms but every**one **also has a mind/soul.

 

[reggieM]

Wow…I’m trying to make sense out of all of this. I will attempt to respond, however. Everything that exists is made up of atoms. So, even though you cannot observe truth or justice in a single atom, together they make up all things, including humans. In humans we can very easily observe truth, goodness, freedom, justice, etc. Therefore, they are truth and are necessary. If the universe contained only single atoms floating around, then I could agree with what you are saying. Or, maybe that is exactly what you are saying! But, that is not the case. And Something had to give those atmos the properties to form every form of matter in the universe. I guess that doesn’t make much sense, but that is how I see it. We simply cannot isolate one from the other.
These posts sound very much like a logic class I took many moons ago! “…truth cannot be untruth, to exist means that I cannot not exist…” all that sort of stuff. Made me crazy, actually.

I think you did a good job explaining that, Sister – as strange as it might seem.

The only place where I didn’t make it clear is that it’s **materialism **that believes everything is only atoms. That’s what we’re criticizing. Atoms cannot create truth, beauty, justice – so there must be something more than atoms. There is the spiritual world – and materialism has no place for that at all, thus it is a false idea.
Yes, Something had to give those atoms properties to become every form of matter that we observe in the universe. The atoms cannot give themselves those properties. Atoms do not even know that they are those diverse forms that we see.

Our first task is to show that materialism doesn’t make sense. **If **everything was made up **only **of atoms (as materialism claims) then atoms couldn’t tell the difference between good and bad, truth and false.
But we humans do tell the difference between good and bad – we know beauty and justice. Those things cannot come from atoms – they have to come from somewhere else. So there has to be a non-material existence – from our Catholic Faith we know this. The supernatural exists – something beyond just atoms.

And that gives every human a direction and purpose and Design that goes beyond what the material can provide. We set our focus and aim and purpose in life at the Truth – because our minds are made to be filled with the Truth. That’s why we love to learn about things and we want to discover the truth.

Humans are more than just atoms. We have a supernatural, eternal soul that was created directly by God and did not emerge from any evolutionary or physical process.

Even though, as believers, we know these things so well and they’re so obvious – it become difficult to try to explain them to someone who is willing to claim that everything that exists is only made of matter alone.

 

[reggieM]

Atomism splits everything into fragments without explaining how they came together as purposeful beings. Everything is made of atoms but every**one **also has a mind/soul.

Everything is made of atoms but atoms cannot even know that they are atoms, and they cannot distinguish themselves from anything but atoms.

If materialism was correct, there would be no reason to distinguish living things from non-living. Those would be considered the same thing – and there wouldn’t be any need to distinguish them either. Living things are just a different collection of atoms – equal to any single molecule. But that kind of thinking obviously leads to insanity – or else it started as insanity and just got worse.

 

[farpinho]

Everything is made of atoms but atoms cannot even know that they are atoms, and they cannot distinguish themselves from anything but atoms.

If materialism was correct, there would be no reason to distinguish living things from non-living. Those would be considered the same thing – and there wouldn’t be any need to distinguish them either. Living things are just a different collection of atoms – equal to any single molecule. But that kind of thinking obviously leads to insanity – or else it started as insanity and just got worse.

I totally agree with that view, I’m going to quote something that was written by Marco Biagini, an Italian Ph.D. in Solid State Physics:

A last typical contradiction in materialism is the claim that the electric impulse in the brain generate consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. Such a claim is incompatible with the laws of physics which establish that electric impulses in our brain are equivalent to all the other electric impulses out of our brain (electric impulses are formed uniquely by some moving electrons), and that all electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields. You must change the laws of physics if you want to claim that electric impulses generate something else beyond electromagnetic fields. Actually, materialists simply take some key words from the language of physics, such as “electric impulse”, “energy”, etc. and then attribute to these words new properties incompatible with the laws of physics; this is a clear abuse of scientific language.

If you want to read the whole thing, and I honestly think it’s worth anyone’s time, there it is subversivethinking.blogspot.com.br/2009/02/marco-biagini-quantum-physics-and.html
Also, subversivethinking.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/interview-with-physicist-marco-biagini.html

 

[farpinho]

Another interesting quote from him:

Science has proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness; so, materialism is incompatible with science. On the other hand, every materialistic attempt to explain the existence of consciousness implies that what suffers, loves, desires, feels etc. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields. The point is that objects can feel nothing at all; objects cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger,self-awareness, etc. Science has proved that the equations of the electromagnetic field are universal; they describe the electromagnetic field within our brain as well as within a copper wire or an atom. There is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the equations of physics. These equations do not explain the existence of consciousness and our capacity to feel. If one hypothesizes that the electromagnetic fields are responsible of our sensations, emotions and thoughts, the only logical conclusion would be that also our television, our washing machine, etc. sometimes would be happy or depressed. In fact, from a scientific point of view there is no difference between the electromagnetic fields present in our brain and the ones present in those objects.

xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/mindandbrain.html

 

[tonyrey]

Everything is made of atoms but atoms cannot even know that they are atoms, and they cannot distinguish themselves from anything but atoms.

If materialism was correct, there would be no reason to distinguish living things from non-living. Those would be considered the same thing – and there wouldn’t be any need to distinguish them either. Living things are just a different collection of atoms – equal to any single molecule. But that kind of thinking obviously leads to insanity – or else it started as insanity and just got worse.

1. Materialists claim life and thought are a **development **of atomic particles.
2. They give no reason for the development.
3. They believe the development has occurred for no reason.
4. Atomic particles must have caused the development themselves.
5. Atomic particles have **no known mechanism **for developing themselves.
6. The development is scientifically inexplicable.
7. The theory is both **irrational **and scientifically worthless.

 

[reggieM]

If you want to read the whole thing, and I honestly think it’s worth anyone’s time, there it is subversivethinking.blogspot.com.br/2009/02/marco-biagini-quantum-physics-and.html
Also, subversivethinking.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/interview-with-physicist-marco-biagini.html

Thanks for that reference. I took some time to read the whole thing …brilliant!
I also read the other essay by Dr. Biagini and that is magnificent also. He’s a rare physicist who understands the philosophical absurdity that materialism causes.
That is one of the best arguments I’ve seen. He takes it beyond merely “the most reasonable explanation” and goes directly to it being a “scientific confirmation” …

The phenomenon of consciousness proves that, at a certain time, our psyche certainly begins to exist in us. The laws of physics prove that the psyche cannot be the product of physical, chemical or biological processes. Therefore, the origin of our psyche is transcendent to the physical reality. We can then identify with God the necessary Cause of the existence of the psyche, being such Cause transcendent. This represents a scientific confirmation of the christian doctrine according to which each man has a soul, created directly by God.

 

[reggieM]

Another interesting quote from him:

Science has proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness; so, materialism is incompatible with science. On the other hand, every materialistic attempt to explain the existence of consciousness implies that what suffers, loves, desires, feels etc. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields. The point is that objects can feel nothing at all; objects cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger,self-awareness, etc. Science has proved that the equations of the electromagnetic field are universal; they describe the electromagnetic field within our brain as well as within a copper wire or an atom. There is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the equations of physics. These equations do not explain the existence of consciousness and our capacity to feel. If one hypothesizes that the electromagnetic fields are responsible of our sensations, emotions and thoughts, the only logical conclusion would be that also our television, our washing machine, etc. sometimes would be happy or depressed. In fact, from a scientific point of view there is no difference between the electromagnetic fields present in our brain and the ones present in those objects.

xoomer.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/mindandbrain.html

I have never seen that explained so clearly before … it’s a thing of beauty.

He explains earlier in that essay:

In fact, an electric impulse is formed only by some electrons moving in a certain direction; according to the laws of physics,** electrons are all equal and indistinguishable**, and they are always moving in every material or electric circuits. To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.

 

[reggieM]

1. Materialists claim life and thought are a **development **of atomic particles.
2. They give no reason for the development.
3. They believe the development has occurred for no reason.
4. Atomic particles must have caused the development themselves.
5. Atomic particles have **no known mechanism **for developing themselves.
6. The development is scientifically inexplicable.
7. The theory is both **irrational **and scientifically worthless.

#4 is true because there could be nothing else in the materialist view.
#5 is true because particles cannot create the idea of “development” or the idea of “forms of particles”. Particles could just be independent values – never forming any bonds. Why should they be able to bond and form molecules? That is unexplained.
From the point of view of a particle – a group of 10 particles is just that one particle alone. It cannot see that there is a group. It cannot see that the group is “doing something”. A group of particles cannot know anything more than what a single particle knows – which is nothing. There is nowhere in the properties of individual particles that defines “justice” or “goodness” or “truth”. No single particle has those features and no group of particles has them.
Without the concepts of truth and goodness – there can be no logic.
Without logic, there can be no science.
So …
#7 is true, especially the last phrase (which we usually don’t see mentioned!).

 

[tonyrey]

1. Materialists claim life and thought are a **development **

I haven’t mentioned it before because it hadn’t dawned on me.

Yet materialists often stating that science will explain how it occurred… **eventually **- which is an act of blind faith unbecoming for either a scientist or philosopher!

Thanks for the continued development of my points, Reggie.