Overwhelming evidence for Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FurtherSuntime said:
An animal say a fox will not & cannot reason out… there is no God.
Click to expand...
A fox cannot use free-will to make choices based on rational conclusions – true. A fox, however, does have some intelligence and freedom to move itself and use some strategies to get its food or respond to stimuli in a way that is not directly caused by the stimuli.

So there are problems for the non-design view. There are no known natural mechanisms that produce intelligence or animal instincts & behaviors or foxes themselves.

The fact that we see these highly complex features and functions in foxes, and that they regularly act according to instinct and “foxlike behaviors”, and that they can strategize (slyly :)) to get food – are all indicators of Design and not of chance-accident.

We could take it a step further and notice that foxes are beautiful animals (when they’re not stealing your chickens) and have remarkably refined features in face, body, fur – along with their fascinating behaviors.

That beauty itself is an indicator of Design.
 
reggieM said:
Thanks for that recommendation – and a place where we can read the entire text. 🙂 I’ve heard of Frank Sheed before and also the Catholic Evidence Guild which was an organization that started in England (I think) to teach the Catholic faith to the general public – right? Maybe like an early version of CAF. 😉

A paragraph from the book …

I have said that my concern is with the intellect rather than
with the will: this not because the intellect matters more in
religion than the will, but because it does matter and tends to
be neglected, and the neglect is bad. I realize that salvation de-
pends directly upon the will. We are saved or damned according
to what we love. If we love God, we shall ultimately get God:
we shall be saved. If we love self in preference to God then we
shall get self apart from God: we shall be damned. But though
in our relation to God the intellect does not matter as much as
the will (and indeed depends for its health upon the will), it
does matter, and as I have said, it is too much neglected – to the
great misfortune of the will, for we can never attain a maximum
love of God with only a minimum knowledge of God.

Exploring and understanding the Design Argument gives us greater knowledge of God – not only that He exists, but that He has communicated Himself to us through nature and the universe.
Click to expand...
That’s precisely the paragraph I noticed because it’s also relevant to recent posts about the fundamental role of reason. 🙂

I was heckled by Christadelphians when speaking for the CEG about the Church being the Apostolic Church!
 
ReapReason said:
Providence does not mean that God interferes with secondary causes. He created a freely evolving universe.

What say ye?
Click to expand...
That is true for the most part but God also intervenes and directs physical causes whenever necessary - in keeping with Christ’s teaching about Providence as well as miracles being performed in His name. Otherwise prayers of intercession would be pointless…
 
tonyrey said:
That is true for the most part but God also intervenes and directs physical causes whenever necessary - in keeping with Christ’s teaching about Providence as well as miracles being performed in His name. Otherwise prayers of intercession would be pointless…
Click to expand...
Miracles are performed in conjunction with the actual existence of human history. He is involved insofar as human salvation is concerned. There is no reason however to think that God also designs physical events like an artist or an architect in order to favour the physical manifestation of the human race as we know it.
 
  1. According to materialism the mind is an illusion.
  2. The firing of neurons is regarded as the sole cause of “mental activity”.
  3. “mental activity” becomes a superfluous term because it is equated with physical activity.
  4. According to materialism David Hume was on the right track when he described the mind as “a bundle of perceptions”.
  5. Yet he failed to go to the logical conclusion that perceptions are simply subatomic events…
  6. According to materialism truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are simply permutations of subatomic events.
  7. Materialism is self-contradictory because it presupposes insight of which subatomic events are incapable.
*Based on what #11, then it follows that any idea/concept/viewpoint of a materialist would be illusory therefore unbelievable. I like that!! Now, just convince the rest of the world!

For #12, that is biologically correct. However, scientists and those in the medical field still cannot define the “mind”. So, how would they explain the mind in terms other than neurons firing or not firing??

Great points!! 👍 Where did you come up with them? Please let me know because I would love to read whatever you’re reading!*
 
reggieM said:
A fox cannot use free-will to make choices based on rational conclusions – true. A fox, however, does have some intelligence and freedom to move itself and use some strategies to get its food or respond to stimuli in a way that is not directly caused by the stimuli.

So there are problems for the non-design view. There are no known natural mechanisms that produce intelligence or animal instincts & behaviors or foxes themselves.

The fact that we see these highly complex features and functions in foxes, and that they regularly act according to instinct and “foxlike behaviors”, and that they can strategize (slyly :)) to get food – are all indicators of Design and not of chance-accident.

We could take it a step further and notice that foxes are beautiful animals (when they’re not stealing your chickens) and have remarkably refined features in face, body, fur – along with their fascinating behaviors.

That beauty itself is an indicator of Design.
Click to expand...
An animal reasons not between what is good or evil, but what is pleasurable or painful. There is some evidence that higher level animals such as whales, elephants and canines do have the capacity to understand, to some degree, situations which call for decisions not based on pain or pleasure. Again, this is clearly proof of a Designer rather than random chaos.
 
Sister_Terese said:
  1. According to materialism the mind is an illusion.
  2. The firing of neurons is regarded as the sole cause of “mental activity”.
  3. “mental activity” becomes a superfluous term because it is equated with physical activity.
  4. According to materialism David Hume was on the right track when he described the mind as “a bundle of perceptions”.
  5. Yet he failed to go to the logical conclusion that perceptions are simply subatomic events…
  6. According to materialism truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are simply permutations of subatomic events.
  7. Materialism is self-contradictory because it presupposes insight of which subatomic events are incapable.
*Based on what #11, then it follows that any idea/concept/viewpoint of a materialist would be illusory therefore unbelievable. I like that!! Now, just convince the rest of the world!

For #12, that is biologically correct. However, scientists and those in the medical field still cannot define the “mind”. So, how would they explain the mind in terms other than neurons firing or not firing??

Great points!! Where did you come up with them? Please let me know because I would love to read whatever you’re reading!*
Click to expand...
I’ve been reading and thinking about the subject for many years! Now I read mainly the posts on this forum and the sources to which they refer.
 
tonyrey said:
I was heckled by Christadelphians when speaking for the CEG about the Church being the Apostolic Church!
Click to expand...
Blessed are you when men reproach you and persecute you for my sake, rejoice and be glad because your reward will be great in heaven. 👍

I can imagine that your argument was strong enough to cause that kind of reaction. 🙂

You’re … remarkable - and more than that.
 
Sister_Terese said:
  1. According to materialism the mind is an illusion.
  2. The firing of neurons is regarded as the sole cause of “mental activity”.
  3. “mental activity” becomes a superfluous term because it is equated with physical activity.
  4. According to materialism David Hume was on the right track when he described the mind as “a bundle of perceptions”.
  5. Yet he failed to go to the logical conclusion that perceptions are simply subatomic events…
  6. According to materialism truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are simply permutations of subatomic events.
  7. Materialism is self-contradictory because it presupposes insight of which subatomic events are incapable.
*Based on what #11, then it follows that any idea/concept/viewpoint of a materialist would be illusory therefore unbelievable. I like that!! Now, just convince the rest of the world!

For #12, that is biologically correct. However, scientists and those in the medical field still cannot define the “mind”. So, how would they explain the mind in terms other than neurons firing or not firing??

Great points!! 👍 Where did you come up with them? Please let me know because I would love to read whatever you’re reading!*
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sister_Terese said:
An animal reasons not between what is good or evil, but what is pleasurable or painful.
Click to expand...
That is a great point. The ability to recognize and choose between good and evil is a powerful indicator of design and purpose.
There is some evidence that higher level animals such as whales, elephants and canines do have the capacity to understand, to some degree, situations which call for decisions not based on pain or pleasure. Again, this is clearly proof of a Designer rather than random chaos.
Click to expand...
Exactly! The world of animal behaviors, instincts and intelligence is fascinating – the sonar of whales and bats, migratory patterns of birds and fish, complex social structures of army ants and bee colonies – and the many inventive uses of intelligence that we can see in a variety of mammals … these things are inexplicable as mere molecular functions. There is also harmony and cooperation in nature not a constant warfare for survival among species. Harmony and partnership, the balances of nature – all of those things speak of Design and not of chance-accidental events.
 
FurtherSuntime said:
With all this debating aside from this thread and unknown to myself I think I goofed with my earlier post quoting your entry so retracting. …

How do you know reason is not itself a system ? You seem to assume by limiting the word… just curious

Also was curious what the things were in the Catholic Church that you mentioned needed to be contradicted.
Click to expand...
Yes, you appear to be confused about a few things.

What do you mean by “system?” What do you think I am assuming, and how? I mean I am not limitioong the word, I am pointing out that its referent is not by any means the only way we know the world, and that in order to reason, there has to be a reasoner. And I am very curious as to what that is.

I also wonder why you think I think some things about the Church need contradicting. Would you please reference the information you base that on? Thanks. then I’ll be more able to specifically answer your question, as I don’t think that anything about the Church needs to be contradicted. I think I mean something else and you took it that way, so I’d be glad to clear that up.

Thanks.
 
Gaber said:
Yes, you appear to be confused about a few things.

What do you mean by “system?” What do you think I am assuming, and how? I mean I am not limitioong the word, I am pointing out that its referent is not by any means the only way we know the world, and that in order to reason, there has to be a reasoner. And I am very curious as to what that is.

I also wonder why you think I think some things about the Church need contradicting. Would you please reference the information you base that on? Thanks. then I’ll be more able to specifically answer your question, as I don’t think that anything about the Church needs to be contradicted. I think I mean something else and you took it that way, so I’d be glad to clear that up.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I would like to ask you a few questions:

What, to the best of your understanding and ability to communicate, is God?

Who, in your view, was Jesus Christ?

If our universe was not planned, then in what way would it come about?
 
reggieM said:
Blessed are you when men reproach you and persecute you for my sake, rejoice and be glad because your reward will be great in heaven. 👍

I can imagine that your argument was strong enough to cause that kind of reaction. 🙂

You’re … remarkable - and more than that.
Click to expand...
If I didn’t know something about the subject after specialising in it for far longer than I care to remember I would be really dim-witted! I’m still learning much from your posts and the others on this forum. One lifetime isn’t enough to cover all the ground: almost every statement we make leads to other questions. That’s why I recently decided to concentrate on this thread and spend less time on the others. - And that’s three times “others” have turned up in three sentences. No! That makes it four “others”… ad infinitum… if you see what I mean. 🙂

The moral is that the absurdity of any infinite regress is yet further evidence for the Ultimate Reality we associate with Design inspired by love because there is no adequate substitute. (All roads lead to Rome but they don’t end there. 😉
 
I am still trying to find a way to articulate this idea; one which I believe I have expressed to you before in another thread many moons ago, tonyrey.

It relates to the Aristotelian notion of final causes, especially as pertains to biology. To make the unguided development of life sound credible, it is often discussed in such a way as focuses on specific organs independent of the rest of the body. The eye, again, is typically the most commonly used example in this debate of design vs. chance.

The materialist will point out lower organisms such as worms whose “eyes” are nothing more than simple light sensitive cells and then suggest that the eye just gradually, by random mutation, accrued enough mutations to develop to the level of complexity possessed by a human being. This ignores the incredible interdependence of different tissues, nerves, muscles, etc. that must be developed simultaneously, all the way down to the as yet inexplicable faculty that allows these “light sensitive” cells to create the subjective sense of “vision.”

Progressive random mutations in a single organ, such as the eyeball alone, are improbable enough without adding the multifarious interdependent systems that would have to be manipulated by this “unconscious force” in perfect unison to create a functional system.

The same holds true for the rest of the body. If life is an unconscious, unguided process it seems entirely impossible that such a thing could effectively form such an incredibly interconnected and interdependent variety of tissues, fluids, bones, etc. I heard it said somewhere that there are some ideas that are so stupid, you have to be incredibly intelligent to believe them.

I suggest the notion that an accidental product of blind forces could be capable of so nimbly controlling and programming its own development is beyond unlikely, approaching the realm of ludicrous. Considering the probable infinitude of possible mutations, and the fact that most of them would be disastrous, it seems far more likely that life would have mutated itself into uselessness, and therefore extinction, before it even got off the ground.

There is more I wish to express to this effect, but my limited education and attention span prevent me from doing so at the moment. I shall ponder it further and add more should another burst of inspiration strike me. 🙂
 
prodigalson2011 said:
I am still trying to find a way to articulate this idea; one which I believe I have expressed to you before in another thread many moons ago, tonyrey.

It relates to the Aristotelian notion of final causes, especially as pertains to biology. To make the unguided development of life sound credible, it is often discussed in such a way as focuses on specific organs independent of the rest of the body. The eye, again, is typically the most commonly used example in this debate of design vs. chance.

The materialist will point out lower organisms such as worms whose “eyes” are nothing more than simple light sensitive cells and then suggest that the eye just gradually, by random mutation, accrued enough mutations to develop to the level of complexity possessed by a human being. This ignores the incredible interdependence of different tissues, nerves, muscles, etc. that must be developed simultaneously, all the way down to the as yet inexplicable faculty that allows these “light sensitive” cells to create the subjective sense of “vision.”

Progressive random mutations in a single organ, such as the eyeball alone, are improbable enough without adding the multifarious interdependent systems that would have to be manipulated by this “unconscious force” in perfect unison to create a functional system.

The same holds true for the rest of the body. If life is an unconscious, unguided process it seems entirely impossible that such a thing could effectively form such an incredibly interconnected and interdependent variety of tissues, fluids, bones, etc. I heard it said somewhere that there are some ideas that are so stupid, you have to be incredibly intelligent to believe them.
Click to expand...
The more absurd a hypothesis is, the more difficult it is to disprove! People can become so enamoured of their own views that they become incapable of accepting any alternative - especially if it has transformed their life. A typical example is a scientist who has dedicated his career to a theory which has earned him fame and fortune. It takes moral courage to one has been misguided for many years.
I suggest the notion that an accidental product of blind forces could be capable of so nimbly controlling and programming its own development is beyond unlikely, approaching the realm of ludicrous. Considering the probable infinitude of possible mutations, and the fact that most of them would be disastrous, it seems far more likely that life would have mutated itself into uselessness, and therefore extinction, before it even got off the ground.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. John Horgan has written a short but excellent review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins:
Despite its blunt charms, however,** Climbing Mount Improbable strikes me as being the least convincing of all of Dawkins’ books. In focusing on the notion of life’s improbability–or lack thereof–Dawkins has inadvertently drawn attention to the greatest weakness of Darwinian theory. There has always been something disturbingly retroactive, after-the-fact, about natural selection as an explanation of life, even when propounded by someone as eloquent as Dawkins. Life**, explained by natural selection alone,** just does not seem inevitable enough.**
Click to expand...
…Dawkins himself notes that after decades of searching, scientists have found no conclusive evidence that life exists elsewhere in the universe…
Click to expand...
Moreover, as far as we know,** life emerged here on earth only once**. In spite of the immensely powerful tools of modern biotechnology, **scientists still cannot make matter animate **in the laboratory. They really have no idea how exactly life began, or whether its emergence was in some sense inevitable or simply a prodigious bit of good fortune.
Click to expand...
Theorists also disagree over why, once life began, it was able to persist for so long and to proliferate into such an astonishing variety of species. Dawkins enjoys pointing out that among all the possible variants of a given species, the vast majority never reproduce; they are failures, dead ends. There are many more ways to be a loser in the game of life, he asserts, than to be a success. Surely that holds true for all of life, not just for its constituent parts. The essence of the selfish-gene model is that each individual pursues its short-term interests regardless of the long-term consequences for life as a whole, or even for other members of the species. Given that premise, ** why couldn’t one species–a bacterium or virus, perhaps–run amok and destroy all other life on earth before finally succumbing itself? **But life has managed, nonetheless, not only to endure but also to produce spiders, newts, and congressmen.
Click to expand...
I know Dawkins knows how utterly improbable we are, because I have discussed the matter with him…
Click to expand...
slate.com/articles/arts/books/1996/09/the_mystery_of_life.2.html

There’s nothing like the truth from the horse’s mouth! 🙂
 
reggieM said:
The world of animal behaviors, instincts and intelligence is fascinating – the sonar of whales and bats, migratory patterns of birds and fish, complex social structures of army ants and bee colonies – and the many inventive uses of intelligence that we can see in a variety of mammals … these things are inexplicable as mere molecular functions. There is also harmony and cooperation in nature not a constant warfare for survival among species. Harmony and partnership, the balances of nature – all of those things speak of Design and not of chance-accidental events.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It is ironic that competition and conflict are used to refute Design but in fact they presuppose concord and co-operation, just as death and disease presuppose life and health.

It is illogical to highlight the negative aspects of existence!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top