Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

That is an unsubstantiated assumption which does not explain the origin of purposeful activity.

I have stated that there is overwhelming evidence for Design without making a dogmatic assertion such as:

Purposeful activity is an emergent phenomenon of life.

Do you believe a purpose is an illusion?

A purpose is as real as anything else. Remember also that an illusion is not nothing. It may not be what is appears to be, but it is not nothing. A mirage is not water, but neither is it nothing. Nothing does not appear to be water.

If purpose is not what it appears to be what is it?

 

[tonyrey]

What evidence is there to support that dogmatic assertion?

Incorrect. I have stated that there is overwhelming evidence for Design, not that there is Design - in stark contrast to your extremely dogmatic assertion

There simply is no evidence to support the notion that the universe has any underlying purpose for its existence…

Even David Hume, notorious for his scepticism, conceded:

A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes every where the most careless, the most stupid thinker; and no man can be so hardened in absurd systems, as at all times to reject it…

Supposing there were a God, who did not discover himself immediately to our senses, were it possible for him to give stronger proofs of his existence, than what appear on the whole face of Nature?

• Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

The occurrence of natural

disasters has no bearing whatsoever on the significance of personal activity - unless one assumes persons consist solely of particles… That position is at least consistent in its rejection of reason as a fundamental reality. An absurd universe naturally produces all sorts of absurdities…Well, you’re right in the sense that there is no apparent relationship between natural disasters and human purpose - the former will happen with or without the latter, and there is plenty of evidence, through the geological record, that they did so.

You are assuming human purpose is unique. Do you have any evidence?

I’m not sure, actually, what point you are trying to make here - the fact of natural disasters clearly pays no heed to the existence or otherwise of sentient beings who might suffer because of such occurences; it’s quite obvious that such events as earthquakes, tsunamis, bushfires, hurricanes etc pay no heed to mere human purposes. Seems a little inconsistent with the notion of a world deliberately designed with human interests in mind, don’t you think?..

Even David Hume could understand that the laws of nature don’t cater for the welfare of individuals in **all **circumstances…

Moreover the phrase “with human interests in mind” is a misrepresentation of Christianity with its implication that the world was designed solely for man.

And I have never claimed that reason is a fundamental reality, in the sense that it must have existed prior to the circumstances in which it arose…

You have made it abundantly clear that you regard reason as a product of purposeless events.

… the universe works the way it works, and it’s actually quite consistent with the notion of a naturalistic universe to suppose that such entities as evolved within it (such as ourselves) would develop the ability to comprehend the way our particular world operates.

1. What is the basis for this astonishing assumption?
2. The fact that a phenomenon exists does not imply that it **must **exist.
3. How did atomic particles acquire the **potential **to perform such an incredible feat?
4. It takes an enormous act of faith to believe inanimate objects have the power to develop into rational beings.

 

[tonyrey]

                                              You are assuming human purpose is unique. Do you have any evidence?

I mean, of course, that you are assuming human beings are the only rational beings.

 

[Sair]

This assumes the “natural process of evolution” is not a purposed one, which begs the question. It also assumes evolution originated life and hence human purpose to begin with. There is not a shred of evidence that the origin of life has anything to do with evolution. Evolution presupposes something to make changes to, it doesn’t explain why life began.

It’s no less (and probably more so) begging the question to assume there is a purpose for evolution. The thing is, we assume a purpose for human-made structures and tools and artifacts primarily because we already have ample evidence that humans do engage in purposeful activity and do build, manufacture and create things with particular purposes in mind. There’s no such evidence of a purposeful entity behind the existence of trees or mountains or oceans or deserts or animals…there’s just the assertion that God made them, with the only evidence being their actual existence - for which there are more elegant and parsimonious explanations than divine intervention readily to hand!

Also, I feel it necessary to point out that the scientific theory of evolution does not purport to explain the origins of life. Abiogenesis is a separate area of research.

 

[Sair]

Incorrect. I have stated that there is overwhelming evidence for Design, not that there is Design - in stark contrast to your extremely dogmatic assertion

But there is also overwhelming evidence against intelligent design, except as it occurs through evolved intelligent beings.

Even David Hume, notorious for his scepticism, conceded:

Even Darwin conceded that the adaptations of animals to their environments bore the illusion of design - but he recognised that there was an explanation that fit the evidence much better than the assumption of special creation by an omnipotent god.

You are assuming human purpose is unique. Do you have any evidence?

I certainly don’t assume that purpose is unique to humans. Where have I ever implied this? It’s obvious that other animals act with purposeful intent, even if we (perhaps rather arrogantly) consider it to be simpler than human intention and purpose.

Even David Hume could understand that the laws of nature don’t cater for the welfare of individuals in **all **circumstances…

How would the laws of nature, such as they are, even be aware of the welfare of individuals?

Moreover the phrase “with human interests in mind” is a misrepresentation of Christianity with its implication that the world was designed solely for man.

The focus of Christian theology is human salvation. That being the case, then according to the theological interpretation, the world was designed either as a cradle for human development or a challenge to test human mettle, a way to prove worthiness for salvation. Concern for other sentient beings is a relatively recent afterthought,

You have made it abundantly clear that you regard reason as a product of purposeless events.

Which there is no reason to assume it’s not, unless you believe it impossible for simplicity to give rise to complexity.

1. What is the basis for this astonishing assumption?

If natural selection actually works, the existing environment would select for beings that succeeded in comprehending it, to the extent that such comprehension promoted their survival.

1. The fact that a phenomenon exists does not imply that it **must **exist.

Never said it does - that would imply an ultimate purpose that I do not believe exists!

1. How did atomic particles acquire the **potential **to perform such an incredible feat?

How indeed? How do the laws of physics operate on a subatomic scale? How do you still imagine that these atomic particles behave in such perfect isolation that they never interact to give rise to more complex phenomena? How does a single car braking cause a traffic jam on the freeway?

1. It takes an enormous act of faith to believe inanimate objects have the power to develop into rational beings.

Though rather less faith than it takes to imagine an entirely separate class of reality to the one we may access through experience.

 

[ReapReason]

Which there is no reason to assume it’s not, unless you believe it impossible for simplicity to give rise to complexity.

There is every reason to assume its not. Complexity in and of its self does not explain the existence self awareness.

 

[Sair]

There is every reason to assume its not. Complexity in and of its self does not explain the existence self awareness.

And does the injection of self-awareness by a supernatural being offer a better, more plausible, more parsimonious explanation? If so, at what point, precisely, in the progress of human evolution, did this happen? To Homo habilis? Or did the divine intervenor wait until Homo erectus or even all the way to Homo sapiens?

And what level of self-awareness are we talking about? The ability to recognise one’s reflection in a pond or in a mirror, or a significant degree of insight into one’s own behaviour and motivations? Dogs and cats and dolphins have been known to demonstrate the former, at least. Humans, as they grow from infants to adults, demonstrate a development of self-awareness. There’s no indication that this doesn’t happen through natural processes. Are you saying that at some point on this continuum, a supernatural entity undetectably intervenes to somehow complete the process?

 

[tonyrey]

Incorrect. I have stated that there is overwhelming evidence for

“evolved intelligent beings” again begs the question. How could it be proved that your posts do not have an intelligent origin?

Even David Hume, notorious for his scepticism, conceded:

Even Darwin conceded that the adaptations of animals to their environments bore the illusion of design - but he recognised that there was an explanation that fit the evidence much better than the assumption of special creation by an omnipotent god.

A false dilemma.

You are assuming human purpose is unique. Do you have any evidence?

I certainly don’t assume that purpose is unique to humans. Where have I ever implied this?

You implied that purpose is the product of events on this planet.

It’s obvious that other animals act with purposeful intent, even if we (perhaps rather arrogantly) consider it to be simpler than human intention and purpose.

Why aren’t they held responsible for their activity?

Even David Hume could understand that the laws of nature don’t cater for the welfare of individuals in **all **

circumstances…
How would the laws of nature, such as they are, even be aware of the welfare of individuals?
Exactly. That was the implication of your objection to Design.

Moreover the phrase “with human interests in mind” is a misrepresentation of Christianity with its implication that the world was designed solely

for man. The focus of Christian theology is human salvation.
Do you expect it to be otherwise? If so why?

That being the case, then according to the theological interpretation, the world was designed either as a cradle for human development…

Non sequitur.

…or a challenge to test human mettle, a way to prove worthiness for salvation.

Distortion of Christian belief.

Concern for other sentient beings is a relatively recent afterthought.

Only in your opinion.

You have made it abundantly clear that you regard reason as a product of purposeless events.

Which there is no reason to assume it’s not, unless you believe it impossible for simplicity to give rise to complexity.“no reason”! You are using reason to destroy its validity by reducing it to a physical process which lacks insight.

1. What is the basis for this astonishing assumption?

If natural selection actually works, the existing environment would select for beings that succeeded in comprehending it, to the extent that such comprehension promoted their survival.An even more astonishing assumption! How on earth could that be proved?

1. The fact that a phenomenon exists does not imply that it **must **

exist. Never said it does…You implied evolution was inevitable.

… that would imply an ultimate purpose that I do not believe exists!

Non sequitur. Purpose is totally irrelevant in the context of “physical necessity”.

1. How did atomic particles acquire the **potential **

to perform such an incredible feat? How indeed? How do the laws of physics operate on a subatomic scale? How do you still imagine that these atomic particles behave in such perfect isolation that they never interact to give rise to more complex phenomena? How does a single car braking cause a traffic jam on the freeway?None of these questions answers the question:

How did atomic particles acquire the **potential **

to perform such an incredible feat?

1. It takes an enormous act of faith to believe inanimate objects

have the power to develop into rational beings. Though rather less faith than it takes to imagine an entirely separate class of reality to the one we may access through experience. False dilemma. We access rational activity through direct experience.

 

[prodigalson2011]

And does the injection of self-awareness by a supernatural being offer a better, more plausible, more parsimonious explanation? If so, at what point, precisely, in the progress of human evolution, did this happen? To Homo habilis? Or did the divine intervenor wait until Homo erectus or even all the way to Homo sapiens?

Ancient Kabbalists had an interesting theory on this, based on their interpretation of Genesis (which is much more sophisticated than you might expect.) Speaking nearly a thousand years ago, some proposed that highly intelligent creatures physically identical to modern man (homo sapiens) were in existence long before they received rational souls. The bestowing of the rational soul would have actually occured in the age of Adam, roughly 4-5,000 years ago; based on that timeline, the Genesis account matches what we know of the emergence of civilization (the earliest evidence being that the appearance of metal tools in the geological record matches the Genesis account of their creation.)

And what level of self-awareness are we talking about? The ability to recognise one’s reflection in a pond or in a mirror, or a significant degree of insight into one’s own behaviour and motivations? Dogs and cats and dolphins have been known to demonstrate the former, at least.

I think the general consensus among most philosophically minded theists is that it is not mere self-awareness that separates man from the lower beasts (though we only share this faculty with some of the higher primates, and even there in a very limited degree. I am not aware of any dogs or cats demonstrating this ability. Have you ever tried to get a dog to look at itself in a mirror?) But rather, it is the intellect; the ability to grasp universals and think in the abstract. To imagine and create. And most importantly to know and love God (and one another.) This makes mankind unique.

Humans, as they grow from infants to adults, demonstrate a development of self-awareness. There’s no indication that this doesn’t happen through natural processes. Are you saying that at some point on this continuum, a supernatural entity undetectably intervenes to somehow complete the process?

I can’t speak for ReapReason, but I can give you my view. And my view is that this is an unnecessary dilemma. I think the obvious solution, from a theistic perspective, is found in separating the development of the body from the immanence of the soul. In the early stages of life, the hardware (brain) is not developed enough to run the software that’s already been installed (the rational soul.) For the sake of analogy, think of it like installing a program on your computer and then finding out that your computer is lacking several drivers or RAM, etc. needed to run the program.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s no less (and probably more so) begging the question to assume there is a purpose for evolution. The thing is, we assume a purpose for human-made structures and tools and artifacts primarily because we already have ample evidence that humans do engage in purposeful activity and do build, manufacture and create things with particular purposes in mind. There’s no such evidence of a purposeful entity behind the existence of trees or mountains or oceans or deserts or animals…there’s just the assertion that God made them, with the only evidence being their actual existence - for which there are more elegant and parsimonious explanations than divine intervention readily to hand!

This is like arguing that in order to get a chicken (purposeful activity) all you need is an egg (ordered causation), conveniently forgetting that in order to get an egg (ordered causation) you needed an existing chicken (purposeful activity). Like the genetic material in an egg that allows the formation of a chicken and without which you would get no chicken, the intelligibly ordered processes that bring about purposeful activity must have been ordered by something more than blind or random processes.

Who is assuming purpose? A look at the fine tuning of the cosmological constants that are ordered towards purposeful life shows that the chance of these constants aligning without purposeful intelligence is so astronomically small as to be literally beyond all probabilistic resources available in the universe, i.e., impossible.

See reasons.org/articles/design-evidences-in-the-cosmos-1998

If this measures up as “no evidence,” your definition of evidence must be quite special.

 

[tonyrey]

Ancient Kabbalists had an interesting theory on this, based on their interpretation of Genesis (which is much more sophisticated than you might expect.) Speaking nearly a thousand years ago, some proposed that highly intelligent creatures physically identical to modern man (homo sapiens) were in existence long before they received rational souls. The bestowing of the rational soul would have actually occured in the age of Adam, roughly 4-5,000 years ago; based on that timeline, the Genesis account matches what we know of the emergence of civilization (the earliest evidence being that the appearance of metal tools in the geological record matches the Genesis account of their creation.)

I think the general consensus among most philosophically minded theists is that it is not mere self-awareness that separates man from the lower beasts (though we only share this faculty with some of the higher primates, and even there in a very limited degree. I am not aware of any dogs or cats demonstrating this ability. Have you ever tried to get a dog to look at itself in a mirror?) But rather, it is the intellect; the ability to grasp universals and think in the abstract. To imagine and create. And most importantly to know and love God (and one another.) This makes mankind unique.

I can’t speak for ReapReason, but I can give you my view. And my view is that this is an unnecessary dilemma. I think the obvious solution, from a theistic perspective, is found in separating the development of the body from the immanence of the soul. In the early stages of life, the hardware (brain) is not developed enough to run the software that’s already been installed (the rational soul.) For the sake of analogy, think of it like installing a program on your computer and then finding out that your computer is lacking several drivers or RAM, etc. needed to run the program.

“unnecessary” is the key word. Either we are biological machines or we are autonomous persons. All other questions fade into insignificance besides this dilemma.

 

[tonyrey]

This is like arguing that in order to get a chicken (purposeful activity) all you need is an egg (ordered causation), conveniently forgetting that in order to get an egg (ordered causation) you needed an existing chicken (purposeful activity). Like the genetic material in an egg that allows the formation of a chicken and without which you would get no chicken, the intelligibly ordered processes that bring about purposeful activity must have been ordered by something more than blind or random processes.

Who is assuming purpose? A look at the fine tuning of the cosmological constants that are ordered towards purposeful life shows that the chance of these constants aligning without purposeful intelligence is so astronomically small as to be literally beyond all probabilistic resources available in the universe, i.e., impossible.

See reasons.org/articles/design-evidences-in-the-cosmos-1998

If this measures up as “no evidence,” your definition of evidence must be quite special.

There comes a stage at which the adaptation of means to ends is so constant, precise, abundant and fundamental it is totally unrealistic to reject its significance. The evidence of order and co-ordination on this planet alone is sufficient to justify belief in its purposeful origin. Accidents do not produce harmony and beauty!

 

[tonyrey]

And does the injection of self-awareness by a supernatural being offer a better, more plausible, more parsimonious explanation?

The creation of rational, autonomous beings by one Supreme Being is a far more cogent and parsimonious explanation than the hypothesis that they have been produced fortuitously by purposeless events.

If so, at what point, precisely, in the progress of human evolution, did this happen? To Homo habilis? Or did the divine intervenor wait until Homo erectus or even all the way to Homo sapiens?

These questions are based on the false assumption that human development must have been gradual even though there are good reasons to believe in “punctuated equilibrium”.

And what level of self-awareness are we talking about? The ability to recognise one’s reflection in a pond or in a mirror, or a significant degree of insight into one’s own behaviour and motivations? Dogs and cats and dolphins have been known to demonstrate the former, at least.

“at least” should be “at most”! It is absurd to put animal intelligence and rational insight in the same category.

There’s no indication that this doesn’t happen through natural processes.

A double negative proves nothing!

Are you saying that at some point on this continuum, a supernatural entity undetectably intervenes to somehow complete the process?

A non sequitur which overlooks the probability that there is constant direction and intervention in the development of the universe.

 

[Sair]

There comes a stage at which the adaptation of means to ends is so constant, precise, abundant and fundamental it is totally unrealistic to reject its significance. The evidence of order and co-ordination on this planet alone is sufficient to justify belief in its purposeful origin. Accidents do not produce harmony and beauty!

There comes a time…after billions of years of possibility, interaction and development, then the co-evolution of various organisms into finely balanced relationships.

That’s why “Young-Earth” creationists argue so strenuously against the geological age of the earth - they want, against all evidence, to demonstrate that there hasn’t been enough time for evolution to occur…or abiogenesis beforehand. If even the YEC’s can accept - at least tacitly, through their rejection of geological history - the fact that, given enough time, the appearance of design can emerge, then the ID theorists are wretchedly behindhand in their assertions of the necessity of intelligent intervention, by an entity they’ve yet to show even exists. Until you can identify the source of overarching purpose in nature, all assertions that it “must” exist are futile.

 

[prodigalson2011]

There comes a time…after billions of years of possibility, interaction and development, then the co-evolution of various organisms into finely balanced relationships.

That’s why “Young-Earth” creationists argue so strenuously against the geological age of the earth - they want, against all evidence, to demonstrate that there hasn’t been enough time for evolution to occur…or abiogenesis beforehand. If even the YEC’s can accept - at least tacitly, through their rejection of geological history - the fact that, given enough time, the appearance of design can emerge, then the ID theorists are wretchedly behindhand in their assertions of the necessity of intelligent intervention, by an entity they’ve yet to show even exists. Until you can identify the source of overarching purpose in nature, all assertions that it “must” exist are futile.

Your argument fails on two fronts:

A) the scientific evidence does not support abiogenesis. The current scientific consensus is that life appears too early in the geological record to have arisen naturally by chance reactions.

This is not a fringe opinion. Even some of the leading evolutionary biologists admit this.

B) it takes absolutely NO time for the appearance of design to emerge in life. That appearance is present in the very simplest form of life.

 

[tonyrey]

And does the injection of self-awareness by a supernatural being offer a better, more plausible, more parsimonious explanation?

No response!

If so, at what point, precisely, in the progress of human evolution, did this happen? To Homo habilis

? Or did the divine intervenor wait until Homo erectus or even all the way to Homo sapiens? These questions are based on the false assumption that human development must have been gradual even though there are good reasons to believe in “punctuated equilibrium”.

No response!

And what level of self-awareness are we talking about? The ability to recognise one’s reflection in a pond or in a mirror, or a significant degree of insight into one’s own behaviour and motivations? Dogs and cats and dolphins have been known to demonstrate the former, at least.

“at least” should be “at most”! It is absurd to put animal intelligence and rational insight in the same category.

No response!

There’s no indication that this doesn’t happen through natural processes.

A double negative proves nothing!

No response!

Are you saying that at some point on this continuum, a supernatural entity undetectably intervenes to somehow complete the process?

A non sequitur which overlooks the probability that there is constant direction and intervention in the development of the universe.

No response!

There comes a stage at which the adaptation of means to ends is so constant, precise, abundant and fundamental it is totally unrealistic to reject its significance. The evidence of order and co-ordination on this planet alone is sufficient to justify belief in its purposeful origin. Accidents do not produce harmony and beauty!

There comes a time…after billions of years of possibility, interaction and development, then the co-evolution of various organisms into finely balanced relationships. That’s why “Young-Earth” creationists argue so strenuously against the geological age of the earth - they want, against all evidence, to demonstrate that there hasn’t been enough time for evolution to occur…or abiogenesis beforehand.
If even the YEC’s can accept - at least tacitly, through their rejection of geological history - the fact that, given enough time, the appearance of design can emerge, then the ID theorists are wretchedly behindhand in their assertions of the necessity of intelligent intervention, by an entity they’ve yet to show even exists.

Design does not even entail “Young-Earth” creationism.
“given enough time” is a sheer act of faith!

Until you can identify the source of overarching purpose in nature, all assertions that it “must” exist are futile.

Can you identify the intangible source of purpose in your mind? It is futile to attribute purpose to your mental activity because you believe you are a biological machine doing exactly what it is programmed to do without having any choice in the matter…

 

[tonyrey]

Your argument fails on two fronts:

A) the scientific evidence does not support abiogenesis. The current scientific consensus is that life appears too early in the geological record to have arisen naturally by chance reactions.

This is not a fringe opinion. Even some of the leading evolutionary biologists admit this.

B) it takes absolutely NO time for the appearance of design to emerge in life. That appearance is present in the very simplest form of life.

The “simplest” being so complex that teams of scientists working for decades in laboratories throughout the world with the most sophisticated equipment have failed to produce one living cell! Yet the blind Goddess is supposed to be the supreme creative force…

 

[tonyrey]

Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth.** Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua.** Hosanna in excelsis.

Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis.

The words “Heaven and earth are full of Your glory” sum up belief in Design. The awe-inspiring beauty of the universe reveals its immense value. Even if there were no life at all it would still be worth creating for its own sake. Utility is not the sole purpose or explanation of existence. Love does not need to justify itself.

Yet love is essentially creative. Heaven is not a passive state of contemplation but a dynamic expression of spiritual energy full of joy and vitality. We glimpse this reality in the boundless enthusiasm of composers like Mozart, artists like Leonardo da Vinci, playwrights like Shakespeare, philosophers like Plato, scientists like Einstein and saints like Thomas Aquinas. The word “enthusiasm” means “the God within” - without which inspiration becomes a meaningless concept.

It is also evident in the lives of all those men and women - regardless of their beliefs - who have dedicated their entire lives to helping the poor and afflicted, without thinking of themselves and devoting themselves to the pursuit of power, fame, wealth or pleasure. Their ideals are spiritual and not sterile like the goals of those who stake everything on this life in this world…

 

[buffalo]

More support for design and IDvolution.

Front Loading? Genetic Entropy? Complexity to simplicity? Adam and Eve with preternatural gifts to modern day humans? Devolution. Every day now more evidence comes in supporting IDvolution and design present at the beginning. :clapping:

Research suggests that evolution sometimes meant becoming simpler, not more complex

(Phys.org)—The view that animals have become more complex over time could be a thing of the past, according to the latest research.

The new evidence, from scientists at the University of St Andrews, suggests that some modern day animals may have evolved instead by becoming less complex.

The researchers say that the discovery, of ghostly remains of gene neighbourhoods that once existed in a 550 million year old ancestor, suggests that the earliest animal was more complex than previously thought.

The findings, published later today in the journal, Current Biology, appear to contradict the common perception of evolution – that creatures have advanced by becoming genetically more complex over time.

more…

 

[tonyrey]

More support for design and IDvolution.

Front Loading? Genetic Entropy? Complexity to simplicity? Adam and Eve with preternatural gifts to modern day humans? Devolution. Every day now more evidence comes in supporting IDvolution and design present at the beginning. :clapping:

Research suggests that evolution sometimes meant becoming simpler, not more complex

(Phys.org)—The view that animals have become more complex over time could be a thing of the past, according to the latest research.

The new evidence, from scientists at the University of St Andrews, suggests that some modern day animals may have evolved instead by becoming less complex.

The researchers say that the discovery, of ghostly remains of gene neighbourhoods that once existed in a 550 million year old ancestor, suggests that the earliest animal was more complex than previously thought.

The findings, published later today in the journal, Current Biology, appear to contradict the common perception of evolution – that creatures have advanced by becoming genetically more complex over time.

more…

Thanks for that news which undermines natural selection as the prime factor in development. There are more reasons for the richness and beauty of nature than the urge to survive. Living organisms are not moulded by their environment like passive lumps of clay. They play an active, creative role in their growth and adaptation to new situations:

amazon.com/Developmental-Plasticity-Evolution-Mary-West-Eberhard/dp/0195122356