Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[Peter_Plato]

There always seems to be an ‘agenda’. And words like ‘intellectuals’ always have to be put in ‘quotes’. I’m not really sure ‘why’.

Don’t you think it’s possible that someone who doesn’t agree with you has reached his or her position honestly and independently? Do you think that all positions other than those to which you prescribe are ‘agenda’ driven?

Really? Isn’t this precisely your problem with people like Meyer and Dembski?

Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[Bradski]

Really? Isn’t this precisely your problem with people like Meyer and Dembski?

Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black!

In both cases I have said on more than one occasion that if they are putting forward arguments from a scientific perspective, then the arguments should be assessed on that basis. My problem with them is that they are wrong.

In the case of the Institute, they have an admitted agenda as has been shown in previous posts. But I’m not sure what ‘agenda’ these so-called ‘intellectuals’ might have other than it’s a ‘group’ of people with the only thing in ‘common’ is the impression the ‘poster’ has that they have different ‘opinions’.

And the great ‘benefit’ of quotes is that you can appear to ‘sneer’ without having to ‘explain’ as much. Can be difficult to ‘stop’ once you’ve started though.

 

[tonyrey]

The Design that has been recognised since the dawn of civilisation.

False deduction:

The preSocratic philosopher Anaxagoras stated that “Mind arranged all things as were to be and are…” Both Plato and Aristotle rejected the atomism of Democritus in favour of a teleological view of reality summed up two thousand years later:

                                                  We observe in the world manifest signs of an arrangement full of    purpose, executed with great wisdom, and argument in whole of a    content indescribably various, and of an extent without limits.

1. This arrangement of means and ends is entirely foreign to the things existing in the world - it belongs to them merely as a contingent attribute; in other words, the nature of different things could not of itself, whatever means were employed, harmoniously tend towards certain purposes, were they not chosen and directed for these purposes by a rational and disposing principle, in accordance with certain fundamental ideas.

1. There exists, therefore, a sublime and wise cause (or several), which is not merely a blind, all-powerful nature, producing the beings and events which fill the world in unconscious fecundity, but a free and intelligent cause of the world.

1. The unity of this cause may be inferred from the unity of the reciprocal relation existing between the parts of the world, as portions of an artistic edifice - an inference which all our observation favours, and all principles of analogy support.
   Kant - Critique of Pure Reason

No mention of God…

Which is what Intelligent Design means. Unless you want to try to convince me that it could be some other ‘intelligent designer’. Isn’t there just the one?

Intelligent Design in a philosophical context means nothing more than the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that the universe has a rational origin.

So Intelligent Design is not irrelevant - it’s what we’re actually discussing.

" Intelligent Design" is mistakenly identified with ID which is limited to biological processes whereas Design is **a comprehensive interpretation of reality **which rejects the materialist’s view that everything is ultimately purposeless.

For the umpteenth time the topic is Design not

• the Designer.

Let me know how you can have one without the other.

It is possible to be agnostic about the origin of purposeful activity.

Let me know that ‘overwhelming evidence for design’ does not mean ‘God’. How can you have a discussion about purported design without mentioning the designer?

Thomas Nagel is an eminent atheist yet he admits there is evidence for Design and is dubious about the hypothesis that reasoning is derived from purposeless processes. He has the virtue of being open-minded - unlike many others who are deeply entrenched in their closed scheme of things:

“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy…”

• Hamlet

You’re starting to sound like the Design Institute: ‘Whatever you do, don’t mention God!’

Ad hominem…

 

[Peter_Plato]

In both cases I have said on more than one occasion that if they are putting forward arguments from a scientific perspective, then the arguments should be assessed on that basis. My problem with them is that they are wrong.

No your problem with them is that they are theists. You don’t really understand Dembski’s arguments so you defer to others and have faith that their refutations stand. You don’t understand these either. (You as much as admitted that.) As for Meyer, you have no idea what he claims because you haven’t read his work. You resort to impugning his motives to discredit him.

 

[buffalo]

So immediately after I suggest that we don’t mention the Institute, I’m going to mention the Institute…

But really. Is this, from the science link above, in any way credible?

‘Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.’

So if they find some evidence for design and we ask them who the designer could be, they’ll. sit there with their arms folded and say: we have absolutely no idea in that regard.

That is the most laughable comment I have seen in quite some time. It really belongs on the Today Show. Are you sure the web page is genuine? If I was satirising their position I would have written exactly the same. These people have zero credibility.

Right, identifying the designer is the work of philosophy.

It is time once again to attack the people.

Are you a design denier?

 

[buffalo]

In both cases I have said on more than one occasion that if they are putting forward arguments from a scientific perspective, then the arguments should be assessed on that basis. My problem with them is that they are wrong.

In the case of the Institute, they have an admitted agenda as has been shown in previous posts. But I’m not sure what ‘agenda’ these so-called ‘intellectuals’ might have other than it’s a ‘group’ of people with the only thing in ‘common’ is the impression the ‘poster’ has that they have different ‘opinions’.

And the great ‘benefit’ of quotes is that you can appear to ‘sneer’ without having to ‘explain’ as much. Can be difficult to ‘stop’ once you’ve started though.

Your claim is that materialists have no a priori agenda?

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. - Lewontin, Richard

 

[buffalo]

As the Catholic Catechism describes God:

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.

 

[buffalo]

You seem to have a reasonable position. It’s not one with which I’m personally likely to agree, but you are doing yourself no favours in hitching your wagon to people who want to undermine science. Maybe it would be better for the debate to skip further references to them.

Perhaps scientists could help themselves be more credible:

Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions

Conventional wisdom says that most retractions of papers in scientific journals are triggered by unintentional errors. Not so, according to one of the largest-ever studies of retractions. A survey published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that two-thirds of retracted life-sciences papers were stricken from the scientific record because of misconduct such as fraud or suspected fraud — and that journals sometimes soft-pedal the reason.

 

[Bradski]

Intelligent Design in a philosophical context means nothing more than the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that the universe has a rational origin.
" Intelligent Design" is mistakenly identified with ID which is limited to biological processes whereas Design is **a comprehensive interpretation of reality **which rejects the materialist’s view that everything is ultimately purposeless.

Let me get this straight. Intelligent design has nothing to with intelligent design which has nothing to do with God.

Are you suggesting that we need to decide if the universe has been designed in the first instance and then move on to a discussion as to whom the intelligent designer is likely to be?

If I concede for the sake of argument that there is evidence of design, are there any suggestions as to who the designer might be?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Your claim is that materialists have no a priori agenda?

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. - Lewontin, Richard

Bravo, buffalo. Nice find. The hypocrisy of the materialist mainstream is undeniable. There is no difference between a theist exploring the possibility of detecting intelligent causes and a materialist presupposing strictly unintelligent causes.

If anything, the theist, being permitted to suppose that God’s creation is, to some degree, an unfolding, self-generating system, can really be open to the evidence on either side, whereas the materialist is necessarily committed to material interpretations.

 

[ReapReason]

Bravo, buffalo. Nice find. The hypocrisy of the materialist mainstream is undeniable. There is no difference between a theist exploring the possibility of detecting intelligent causes and a materialist presupposing strictly unintelligent causes.

If anything, the theist, being permitted to suppose that God’s creation is, to some degree, an unfolding, self-generating system, can really be open to the evidence on either side, whereas the materialist is necessarily committed to material interpretations.

That statement can be interpreted in two ways. It can be interpreted as a being a commitment to methodological naturalism, or it can be interpreted as being a commitment to metaphysical naturalism.

While science itself is intrinsically naturalistic in terms of method, it is not Metaphysical Naturalism, and neither can Science properly understood let a divine foot in the door.

I agree with this.

 

[buffalo]

Bravo, buffalo. Nice find. The hypocrisy of the materialist mainstream is undeniable. There is no difference between a theist exploring the possibility of detecting intelligent causes and a materialist presupposing strictly unintelligent causes.

If anything, the theist, being permitted to suppose that God’s creation is, to some degree, an unfolding, self-generating system, can really be open to the evidence on either side, whereas the materialist is necessarily committed to material interpretations.

To put it in perspective:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II

But, it has to be honest science and an honest exchange.

 

[ReapReason]

To put it in perspective:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II

But, it has to be honest science and an honest exchange.

Honest science does not search for Divine interventions.

 

[prodigalson2011]

To put it in perspective:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II

But, it has to be honest science and an honest exchange.

Exactly. Science can only provide the raw data. In that sense, it must be “materialistic.” However, no data ever goes uninterpreted, and that’s where so many scientists, ala Dawkins, Hawking, etc., etc., ad infinitum, go wrong. They think, presumably because they are scientists, that their philosophy is scientific. But this is where the border between empirical science and philosophy is inevitably crossed: when we go from data to interpretation. And to say that we cannot validly argue, on the basis of the scientific data, for a theistic interpretation is pure hogwash.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Honest science does not search for Divine interventions.

Science searches for data. Nothing else. Anything beyond raw data is metaphysical interpretation. But data do carry implications, and those implications can point away from naturalistic assumptions/interpretations.

I think we three all agree here already; we’ve just been expressing the idea in different terms.

 

[buffalo]

Exactly. Science can only provide the raw data. In that sense, it must be “materialistic.” However, no data ever goes uninterpreted, and that’s where so many scientists, ala Dawkins, Hawking, etc., etc., ad infinitum, go wrong. They think, presumably because they are scientists, that their philosophy is scientific. But this is where the border between empirical science and philosophy is inevitably crossed: when we go from data to interpretation. And to say that we cannot validly argue, on the basis of the scientific data, for a theistic interpretation is pure hogwash.

Yes - and this shows the weakness - human reasoning of the observations. The arrow show the information flow.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

 

[buffalo]

Honest science does not search for Divine interventions.

Honest science makes sure the observations are honest. The problem though is the observations are incomplete of reality for science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe and is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There always seems to be an ‘agenda’. And words like ‘intellectuals’ always have to be put in ‘quotes’. I’m not really sure ‘why’.

Don’t you think it’s possible that someone who doesn’t agree with you has reached his or her position honestly and independently? Do you think that all positions other than those to which you prescribe are ‘agenda’ driven?

Of course not. One could hardly accuse William Ockham or Francis Bacon or many of the Scholastics or even of St. Augustine of having an " agenda " and they were certainly " intellectuals " of the highest order. I’m not even sure we could accuse poor Decartes of having an " agenda. "

But it is absolutely certain that Hume had an agenda and most of the modern agnostics/atheists have an agenda or they wouldn’t be writing so many books, holding interviews and debates all over the world and calling for " affirmative action " for their " cause ." And do you deny that our educational systems have a purely secular agenda and that this starts in grade school and goes all the way through to graduate school? Do you deny that there is an organized " agenda " to marginalize those with religious views, to keep them from public influence, to force them to paticipate in acts and programs they deem immoral?

But of course you may not have had an " agenda " yourself. And you may have arrived at your positions without any unbiased indoctrination from your teachers or professors. I would certainly be more than curious to hear about your genesis to atheism. I think that would make a wonderful thread. How about " …My genesis to atheism…" and then ask others to contribute their " genesis. " And just stipulate that there will be no debate on the thread but that questions may be asked for purposes of clarification only. I think that would be a great idea. Why don’t you start one? I think it would be within the rules. But of course you could always clear it with the Moderators first just to be safe.

 

[Bradski]

If anything, the theist, being permitted to suppose that God’s creation is, to some degree, an unfolding, self-generating system, can really be open to the evidence on either side, whereas the materialist is necessarily committed to material interpretations.

So a theist, musing on intelligent design, naturally supposes that your god is the designer. Doesn’t that restrict the meaning of theist?

And God’s creation allows you to be open to the evidence that He might exist or not. It sounds like the decision has been made before the evidence is presented.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes - and this shows the weakness - human reasoning of the observations. The arrow show the information flow.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

I like that. Have you read " Aquinas " and " The Last Superstition ( P.G. only on pg 146) " by Edward Feser?