Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

1. Belief in Design is based on the primacy, power and supremacy of reasoning.
2. We know from experience that purposeful, rational beings are far more powerful and valuable than purposeless, non-rational things.
3. An explanation in terms of reasons is far more comprehensive and fertile than an explanation in terms of blind causes.
4. Reasoning is a purposeful activity and it cannot be explained coherently by purposeless activity.
5. Life based on answers to “How?” is meaningless without answers to “Why?”
6. The proposition that all activity is derived from non-rational, purposeless activity is self-contradictory and self-refuting.

 

[reggieM]

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.

Great post – a very nice burst of philosophical inspiration.

True – the no-design view denies that there is evidence of causality or teleology in nature. However, it’s obvious to see “usefulness” and many aspects of purpose among organisms – acting in a coordinated and ordered way. This is the opposite of what chance produces.

So, if everything is reduced to chance and molecular motion, there is no reason for things to act with a purpose.

But in spite of that, we have claims about how the eye “might have” developed from light sensitive cells. I think you said it very well:

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.”

It’s not just the development of a lens or even the inexplicable “capture” of visual signals – but every change has to be matched with changes in the brain – and eventually in the conscious mind. Visual images are “stored” in memory in a way we can’t explain – and yet this supposedly happened through chance mutations.

Additionally, mutations in the eye are something we protect against and the body defends itself from them.

I think it gets worse because biologists are now saying that a variety of different kinds of eyes “emerged independently” as many as 40 different times. So, it’s not even like the same eye form became other eyes – but that the same solution of visual perception was supposedly “discovered” by random natural processes that many times in different organisms.

Then, as you said – there is the rest of the body – with an unknown number of components and processes all working in an incredibly complex harmony to support life.

The hypothesis changes all the time, but only to become more absurd and incomprehensible. Some scientists are educated only in a very narrow range of study. Many do not have any philosophical background and they can’t even recognize gross errors in logic or consistency. Some present their imaginary ideas about what “could have happened” as if they are scientific data. Many don’t actually go out into nature and just appreciate what is there … or so it seems to me.

Anyone who cannot recognize the incredible beauty and complex balance that is found everywhere in nature has a soul that is somewhat dead. There is something very wrong in a person who can mentally reduce all of nature to the blind, random, unintelligent movement of molecules. Others simply cannot recognize the beauty in nature – either in its symmetric-mathematical structure or its profoundly moving aesthetic power.

It seems that many researchers are interested in amusing themselves and their sponsors by trying to keep alive a belief in scientism through any means of conjecture or even story-telling. They run from one nonsensical idea to the next – as ready and quick to discard the old notion as they are to temporarily embrace something else.

 

[reggieM]

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.

That’s a good idea. I have decided to limit my participation to a few threads also. It’s easier to maintain focus on the topic that way.

 

[reggieM]

slate.com/articles/arts/books/1996/09/the_mystery_of_life.2.html

There’s nothing like the truth from the horse’s mouth!

That was very insightful – thanks.

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.

Even some prominent scientists [Margulis] who (irrationally) reject design can see that that idea of selfish-genes acting independently their own interests simply cannot work in nature which is a complex network of support, collaboration and dependency among all the species – plant, insect, animal and human.

But it also doesn’t explain why anything should even act selfishly at all. If the origin is blind chance, there is no reason for organisms to preserve their own life.

 

[reggieM]

1. Belief in Design is based on the primacy, power and supremacy of reasoning.
2. We know from experience that purposeful, rational beings are far more powerful and valuable than purposeless, non-rational things.
3. An explanation in terms of reasons is far more comprehensive and fertile than an explanation in terms of blind causes.
4. Reasoning is a purposeful activity and it cannot be explained coherently by purposeless activity.
5. Life based on answers to “How?” is meaningless without answers to “Why?”
6. The proposition that all activity is derived from non-rational, purposeless activity is self-contradictory and self-refuting.

Could you explain point #5 in more detail?

 

[reggieM]

A little more on eyesight … and a reminder to myself to thank Our Lord for such a remarkable gift!!!

“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” — CS Lewis

The darkness of atoms and molecules does not “know” that light exists or that there is a need for sight. Light has no meaning and sight itself could not be even imagined.

There is nobody around to tell molecules that “darkness is not all there is – in fact, there is light out there”. They have to discover light, then they have to discover that light is useful. Then they have to have a brain that understands light – and visual information, and the delicate balance of stereo imagery and how to change focus from near to far, and how to process color.

All of this has to be done without knowing or needing the usefulness of such an apparatus.

 

[tonyrey]

Even some prominent scientists [Margulis] who (irrationally) reject design can see that that idea of selfish-genes acting independently their own interests simply cannot work in nature which is a complex network of support, collaboration and dependency among all the species – plant, insect, animal and human.

But it also doesn’t explain why anything should even act selfishly at all. If the origin is blind chance, there is no reason for organisms to preserve their own life.

1. You have highlighted (not by chance of course!) the supreme difficulty and insurmountable problem for the materialist - quite apart from all the other factors.
2. Even immensely complex inanimate structures do not have** the urge to survive **nor the plasticity required to achieve that goal.
3. “Natura non facit saltus” (Nature does not make jumps) may not apply to **living **organisms but it is certainly true of inanimate objects.
4. The appearance of life takes us into an entirely new dimension of reality that cannot be explained in terms of physics or chemistry.
5. That is why Nobel Prize-winner Jacques Monod had to coin the term “teleonomy” to distinguish biological purpose from teleology, i.e.** goal-seeking activity** that cannot be explained by physical laws.
6. The distinction is arbitrary because biological purpose cannot be explained in terms of** physics** or chemistry.
7. Physical and chemical explanations are restricted to** past and present** events.
8. All types of purpose presuppose rational purpose because purpose entails directiveness and a reference to a state which does not yet exist!

 

[tonyrey]

A little more on eyesight … and a reminder to myself to thank Our Lord for such a remarkable gift!!!

“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” — CS Lewis

The darkness of atoms and molecules does not “know” that light exists or that there is a need for sight. Light has no meaning and sight itself could not be even imagined.

There is nobody around to tell molecules that “darkness is not all there is – in fact, there is light out there”. They have to discover light, then they have to discover that light is useful. Then they have to have a brain that understands light – and visual information, and the delicate balance of stereo imagery and how to change focus from near to far, and how to process color.

All of this has to be done without knowing or needing the usefulness of such an apparatus.

Life consists of so many luxuries utility is a hopelessly inadequate explanation.

“Survival value” implies life is valuable even when confined to the bare necessities!

As King Lear said:

“O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.”

Shakespeare’s wisdom is often underrated. “Filial ingratitude!” applies to those who fail to appreciate that life is a divine gift…

 

[ReapReason]

Do you guys ever disagree?

 

[greylorn]

1. You have highlighted (not by chance of course!) the supreme difficulty and insurmountable problem for the materialist - quite apart from all the other factors.
2. Even immensely complex inanimate structures do not have** the urge to survive **nor the plasticity required to achieve that goal.
3. “Natura non facit saltus” (Nature does not make jumps) may not apply to **living **organisms but it is certainly true of inanimate objects.
4. The appearance of life takes us into an entirely new dimension of reality that cannot be explained in terms of physics or chemistry.
5. That is why Nobel Prize-winner Jacques Monod had to coin the term “teleonomy” to distinguish biological purpose from teleology, i.e.** goal-seeking activity** that cannot be explained by physical laws.
6. The distinction is arbitrary because biological purpose cannot be explained in terms of** physics** or chemistry.
7. Physical and chemical explanations are restricted to** past and present** events.
8. All types of purpose presuppose rational purpose because purpose entails directiveness and a reference to a state which does not yet exist!

Regarding your Item #3

Tonyrey:

1. “Natura non facit saltus” (Nature does not make jumps) may not apply to **living **organisms but it is certainly true of inanimate objects.

Perhaps you’ve heard of quantum physics? Energy is transferred in tiny but discrete jumps, often referred to as quantum leaps.

Moreover, energy is transferred only in discrete, discontinuous units (quanta).

This is a minor quibble, presented only to show how little real knowledge lies behind your spurious assertions.

More important, you seem to arrange these arguments around the issue of purpose. Yet, I have yet to read an explanation of God’s purpose behind creation that is coherent enough to serve as a worthwhile Grade B Sci-Fi TV movie plot.

The notion that an almighty, omnipotent being who is capable of creating brilliant, creative individuals would, instead, create the motley horde of unimaginative nincompoops and lazy incompetents who comprise the majority of the human race is absurd.

What’s your motivationally logical common-sense explanation for God’s creation of humans?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Do you guys ever disagree?

Yes, really. Heaven forbid people agree on something.

 

[tonyrey]

Regarding your Item #3

Perhaps you’ve heard of quantum physics? Energy is transferred in tiny but discrete jumps, often referred to as quantum leaps.

Moreover, energy is transferred only in discrete, discontinuous units (quanta).

This is a minor quibble, presented only to show how little real knowledge lies behind your spurious assertions.

The ad hominem doesn’t explain how the urge to survive originated - which is to be expected when physics is exalted as the be-all-and-end-all of existence…

More important, you seem to arrange these arguments around the issue of purpose. Yet, I have yet to read an explanation of God’s purpose behind creation that is coherent enough to serve as a worthwhile Grade B Sci-Fi TV movie plot. The notion that an almighty, omnipotent being who is capable of creating brilliant, creative individuals would, instead, create the motley horde of unimaginative nincompoops and lazy incompetents who comprise the majority of the human race is absurd.

Elitism is a common symptom of hubris with its presumptions of privileged insight, superior knowledge and contempt for common humanity.

What’s your motivationally logical common-sense explanation for God’s creation of humans?

The freedom to choose what to believe and how to live - which are evident in the activity of every rational being.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

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.

.

Quote Gaber: # 130 ( source of contradicting objection asked about

No, I don’t go to church, it is too painful. And that is because what I see does not contradict the teachings of the Church. It is kind of like the one thing that GK Chesterton said that was true: “It isn’t that Christianity doesn’t work; it’s just that no one’s tried it yet.”

FS continuing…

With regards to reason and your question, what do I mean by system.

Gaber quotes: ( no need to read, I’m sure you know what you write

I’m only advocating that reason has a limited use, as brilliant and overarching tool as it is. I’m not attacking reason by any means. I’m attempting to point out that it may not have the primacy you give it in the kind of area you are requiring it to function in the way you wish to use it.

And as for the Beauty, Power, Love, and Nature of God, where do those exist and where are those perceived outside of awareness? So if your awareness is increased, is not your appreciation of those qualities increased as well? I would like to report that they are.

What I am doing, if anything, is pointing to the fact that awareness underlies its contents and is experiencable at a pure state. And that having experienced that state, the perception of the world and the nature of one;s mind changes radically. Thus one’s reasoning about the Nature of the world is informed from a more comprehensive state of understanding, And that comprehension is applicable as well to one’s understanding of religious matters, as much, having had that, is interpreted from, again, a more inclusive base.

And what does that mean if you do not "be still and know that I am God.? Why do all those contemplatives go and meditate on Silence, the one that’s not the absence of sound?

FS continuing:

Trying to suggest in the meditative trance that reason is abandoned or limited makes no sense and contradicts your above translations. You can call it awareness but the problem is without reasoning to reflect and allow memory to take place with all these wonderful impressions, reflections and thoughts in the moment nothing would be remembered.

Reason is obviously a system and interconnected with awareness to some degree.These experiences are simply different degrees of experience contained within reason. Its just a richer form of reason, thats all.

If your not reasoning out during the meditation then your not distinguishing the contrast that you recall later in order to translate all these things…so I think you may have a few words jumbled ( and lays in with all this debating about reason. Thanks

 

[prodigalson2011]

Here’s another simple biological relationship so fortuitous that it screams “design!” It’s something everyone knows by the time they leave grade school.

Consider the unlikely relationship between plants and animals. Animals need oxygen to breathe. Plants produce oxygen in abundance. Now, when animals exhale, they expel carbon dioxide, which, if left in the atmosphere, becomes poisonous to animal life. Wonder of wonders, plants suck this stuff right back up and, in turn, spew out, more oxygen! Coincidence? I’d say the credulity lies on the naturalists plate in this case.

 

[farpinho]

Do you guys ever disagree?

Can’t we just agree to disagree?

 

[tonyrey]

Here’s another simple biological relationship so fortuitous that it screams “design!” It’s something everyone knows by the time they leave grade school.

Consider the unlikely relationship between plants and animals. Animals need oxygen to breathe. Plants produce oxygen in abundance. Now, when animals exhale, they expel carbon dioxide, which, if left in the atmosphere, becomes poisonous to animal life. Wonder of wonders, plants suck this stuff right back up and, in turn, spew out, more oxygen! Coincidence? I’d say the credulity lies on the naturalists plate in this case.

Very often we take for granted facts which have great significance. This is one of them!

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I don’t know how you can go on with this urge to survive thing Tony…a force is an urge and well about the universe. Awareness of the urge in consciousness is what it winds up with and the same ole hard problem issue. And that can get addressed many ways as it has for a long time…maybe a mystery for some, maybe not…all depending on the individual because there is no physical proof one way or another. But what I’d like to say is to be honest I’m satisfied with my theory “for now” and many people have great theories, but bottom line from this desk would like to emphasize that everything does appear to be engineered for the trip…so why…would there need to be a perpetual thinking style suggesting a tinkering creator along the way changing the oil and tires as though the trip was detoured and a pit stop was required for un-suspected rainy weather or something…anyway don’t worry about answering only because I can see your method and I think its terrific but my particular curiosities are little different…so please refrain from reading the riot act in what the “translation” in the dogma’s suggest…they are individual translations allowing for unique individual appreciations…you have that habit in my direction and it gets under my skin so I thought I’d be gentlemanly and let you know…thanks and being complimentary to be sure I think its a great thread, continuing to read along and through patiently.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know how you can go on with this urge to survive thing Tony…a force is an urge and well about the universe.

1. My comments on the urge to survive have been rare and brief.
2. I don’t believe a force or an urge is about the universe.

Awareness of the urge in consciousness is what it winds up with and the same ole hard problem issue.

1. I’m not sure whether consciousness is an appropriate term for simpler forms of life.

… And that can get addressed many ways as it has for a long time…maybe a mystery for some, maybe not…all depending on the individual because there is no physical proof one way or another. But what I’d like to say is to be honest I’m satisfied with my theory “for now” and many people have great theories, but bottom line from this desk would like to emphasize that everything does appear to be engineered for the trip…

1. You agree but many don’t!

… so why would there need to be a perpetual thinking style suggesting a tinkering creator along the way changing the oil and tires as though the trip was detoured and a pit stop was required for un-suspected rainy weather or something…

1. The immense complexity of living organisms in an immensely complex environment implies that a certain degree of direction and intervention is essential if the goals for which
   the universe is designed are to be attained - especially if Providence is a reality.

anyway don’t worry about answering only because I can see your method and I think its terrific but my particular curiosities are little different…so please refrain from reading the riot act in what the “translation” in the dogma’s suggest…they are individual translations allowing for unique individual appreciations…you have that habit in my direction and it gets under my skin so I thought I’d be gentlemanly and let you know…thanks and being complimentary to be sure I think its a great thread, continuing to read along and through patiently.

We are not compelled to read any particular thread!

If I thought no one is interested in the evidence for and against Design I would certainly abandon the project but statistics prove otherwise.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you guys ever disagree?

Many disagree but there is no obligation to participate in every thread!

 

[pete_29]

The alternative is an unintelligible world without intelligent beings - or with beings who only imagine they’re intelligent!

I imagined I was intelligent until I read some of these posts. WOW! Way over my head.