Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

[Leela]

Uh, the Bible tells us about God’s intentions. Read Genesis. To say that God did not know what was going to happen ignores the words of Jesus.

That’s not what Dave was saying, but anyway…according to the Bible, God designed everything. Every hair on your head is numbered! How could anything look any more designed by God than anything else? In the Garden of Eden, even the particular arrangements of the myriad blades of grass or groupings of leaves of every tree that perhaps looked random and “natural,” must have been designed to look exactly that way. Right?

One thing simply can’t look more like it is designed by a divine omnipotent being than anything else. A person is no more evidence of a supernatural sort of design than a tree, a rock, or the particular arrangement of grains of sand on a beach since supernatural designs can look like anything imaginable.

 

[edwest2]

That’s not what Dave was saying, but anyway…according to the Bible, God designed everything. Every hair on your head is numbered! How could anything look any more designed by God than anything else? In the Garden of Eden, even the particular arrangements of the myriad blades of grass or groupings of leaves of every tree that perhaps looked random and “natural,” must have been designed to look exactly that way. Right?

One thing simply can’t look more like it is designed by a divine omnipotent being than anything else. A person is no more evidence of a supernatural sort of design than a tree, a rock, or the particular arrangement of grains of sand on a beach since supernatural designs can look like anything imaginable.

Your statements make no sense whatsoever. Is a car a tree? Does a cell contain nanomachinery? Is DNA a type of software that is far more sophisticated than any devised by man?

ID tells us that the cell shows evidence of design that is specific, that is complex and that is ordered to produce a particular outcome, whether that’s the DNA to make a horse or a man. It is not a collection of nonliving chemicals or metal like that in a car. We recognize design in automobiles, refrigerators and dishwashers. You want to turn this into a conversation that specifies nothing. The visible world is specific.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

How could anything look any more designed by God than anything else? In the Garden of Eden, even the particular arrangements of the myriad blades of grass or groupings of leaves of every tree that perhaps looked random and “natural,” must have been designed to look exactly that way. Right?

That is a misconception of Design. Not all the details of an immensely complex system are necessarily designed to look exactly that way. Sometimes the outcome is even opposed to its basic purpose. Natural disasters are but one example.

One thing simply can’t look more like it is designed by a divine omnipotent being than anything else. A person is no more evidence of a supernatural sort of design than a tree, a rock, or the particular arrangement of grains of sand on a beach since supernatural designs can look like anything imaginable.

A person is far greater evidence of Design than a rock by virtue of being a designer!

 

[Leela]

That is a misconception of Design. Not all the details of an immensely complex system are necessarily designed to look exactly that way. Sometimes the outcome is even opposed to its basic purpose. Natural disasters are but one example.

That’s not the issue. The question is how could you decide whether or not a natural disaster is or is not designed by an omnipotent being. What could it mean for it to “look designed” if we are talking about an omnipotent designer that could make anything look like anything. If “looks designed” means anything, then an omnipotent designer could make something that is designed look like its not designed, so we certainly couldn’t go by looks o decide whether or not something was designed by such a being. We could only identify design by the limitations of a designer, and a divine designer presumably has no limitations.

 

[Leela]

Your statements make no sense whatsoever. Is a car a tree? Does a cell contain nanomachinery? Is DNA a type of software that is far more sophisticated than any devised by man?

ID tells us that the cell shows evidence of design that is specific, that is complex and that is ordered to produce a particular outcome, whether that’s the DNA to make a horse or a man. It is not a collection of nonliving chemicals or metal like that in a car. We recognize design in automobiles, refrigerators and dishwashers. You want to turn this into a conversation that specifies nothing. The visible world is specific.

I don’t really understand what you objection is to my argument, but I guess our lack of understanding of one another is mutual.

Anyway, we recognize human design in automobiles and refrigerators because we know what humans can do and what they can’t do. The same does not apply to a divine designer because there is nothing that such a designer could not do. In other words, we can’t make any scientific sense of what it would mean for something to be designed by an omnipotent being since we can’t make any sense of what it would be like for something to be not designed by such a being. Divine design can never be ruled out, but it doesn’t do any scientific work to suppose that something is designed by a omnipotent divine designer being to be the way it is. It would only be helpful if we knew something about the limits and intentions of the designer as we do in the case of human designers and the designers of spider webs and beaver dams.

 

[Touchstone]

That’s not the issue. The question is how could you decide whether or not a natural disaster is or is not designed by an omnipotent being. What could it mean for it to “look designed” if we are talking about an omnipotent designer that could make anything look like anything. If “looks designed” means anything, then an omnipotent designer could make something that is designed look like its not designed, so we certainly couldn’t go by looks o decide whether or not something was designed by such a being. We could only identify design by the limitations of a designer, and a divine designer presumably has no limitations.

Bingo. Knowledge in this area is eliminative. We rely on falsification to carve out what remains unfalsified as the proposition(s) that succeed. But you can’t eliminate a divine designer, no way, no how. Such a being could have made the earthquake happen precisely as it did just as easily as any other scenario.

This is the broken back of ID as an intellectual framework – the ignorance of the nature, constraints, features and patterns of The Designer defeat it as a matter of substantive inquiry. It cannot, in principle, make progress on its core goal – identifying sings and results of design in nature – so long as it fails to identify a designer which can be analyzed, tested and used as means of ruling the false or incorrect ideas out.

-TS

 

[edwest2]

I don’t really understand what you objection is to my argument, but I guess our lack of understanding of one another is mutual.

Anyway, we recognize human design in automobiles and refrigerators because we know what humans can do and what they can’t do. The same does not apply to a divine designer because there is nothing that such a designer could not do. In other words, we can’t make any scientific sense of what it would mean for something to be designed by an omnipotent being since we can’t make any sense of what it would be like for something to be not designed by such a being. Divine design can never be ruled out, but it doesn’t do any scientific work to suppose that something is designed by a omnipotent divine designer being to be the way it is. It would only be helpful if we knew something about the limits and intentions of the designer as we do in the case of human designers and the designers of spider webs and beaver dams.

Now you are being obtuse. The cell contains designed elements. Human beings can recognize design without knowing who the designer is. You choose to ignore that.

Regards,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Now you are being obtuse. The cell contains designed elements. Human beings can recognize design without knowing who the designer is. You choose to ignore that.

Cells contain some elements that some people say are designed and which other people say are not designed. Human beings can reasonably easily recognise human design, while non-human design may be more difficult. A spider’s web looks designed but it is difficult to identify the designer.

ID cannot be assumed but must prove itself. It may be able to do so in future, but so far it has failed, even by the criteria that Dr Dembski laid out.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

That is a misconception of Design. Not all the details of an immensely complex system are necessarily designed to look exactly that way. Sometimes the outcome is even opposed to its basic purpose. Natural disasters are but one example.

A natural disaster is due to a permitted but unintended coincidence of the laws of nature. Considered in isolation from its context it is impossible to make a decision but **within the framework of an orderly system which forms the basis for rational existence **Design is the most reasonable explanation.

What could it mean for it to “look designed” if we are talking about an omnipotent designer that could make anything look like anything. If “looks designed” means anything, then an omnipotent designer could make something that is designed look like it’s not designed, so we certainly couldn’t go by looks to decide whether or not something was designed by such a being.

That is a very feeble argument. An omnipotent designer could do so but such a possibility is not worth considering unless you can explain the motive for such irrational activity.

We could only identify design by the limitations of a designer, and a divine designer presumably has no limitations.

Design is identified by the purposes fulfilled by the system, not by the limitations of the designer. Moreover any finite system has limitations imposed by the laws established by the designer. It becomes chaotic if it lacks consistency and ceases to be an orderly system which serves no useful purpose.** Omnipotence is not a carte blanche for absurdity! **

 

[buffalo]

IDvolution posits that God breathed the language of DNA at the beginning. After the fall DNA was able to be corrupted. So in the beginning the design was golden, after the fall the design became susceptible.

 

[buffalo]

Cells contain some elements that some people say are designed and which other people say are not designed. Human beings can reasonably easily recognise human design, while non-human design may be more difficult. A spider’s web looks designed but it is difficult to identify the designer.

ID cannot be assumed but must prove itself. It may be able to do so in future, but so far it has failed, even by the criteria that Dr Dembski laid out.

rossum

Why don’t we help Dembski out?

Let us set up some simple parameters that would help us detect design.

On a scale of 1 to 10

Rate purpose
Rate number of right angles
Rate texture
Rate patterns
Rate complexity
Rate IR

We can add more.

Where do you want to start?

 

[grannymh]

A person is far greater evidence of Design than a rock by virtue of being a designer!

The human person is the only living organism in the universe who qualifies as an irreducible complexity.

 

[tonyrey]

The human person is the only living organism in the universe who qualifies as an irreducible complexity.

Delightful perspicacity!

 

[LittleSoldier]

original question: How would you propose to go about showing that the design you claim to find in biological organisms on Earth is due to supernatural designers as opposed to visiting aliens from planet Zorg?

That is a very good question and I don’t have a very good answer. I can’t answer it as a scientist. I guess it has to do with faith in God and knowing His omnipotence is expressed in a loving way. He created everything and He certainly didn’t have to, as far as I know. I do believe in that thing we’re not allowed to discuss but I see no conflict with that and believing in a loving God creating the world and everything on and in it. It’s the way He designed an organism that causes problems. I know if God wanted to He could have created everything in one split nano-second. After all, He is God. He could also have sent ETs from planet Zorg to seed the earth so this is a possibility. And He could have sent that little Martian and his dog to planet Zorg to seed it. And so on and so on… But eventually we get to the point where God had to create something. If the ETs from planet Zorg were not created by God it is possible that the little Martian and his dog were.

Somewhere, going back further and further, there has to be a place where God created everything ex nihilo. I don’t see any way around that.

I hope this makes sense.

Actually, all living organisms have a designed nature. Non-human living organisms have a design which is natural material. But when it comes to human organisms, there is the natural material and something else which can’t be explained as natural material. I am referring to an unique unification of the rational/corporeal in the human person.
Since our rational capabilities are not found in nature, this would mean that they had to come from something super-natural.

Unique unification of the rational/corporeal? I am impressed!! But confused. Are you referring to our brain power? I don’t think you are. Are you saying that our bodies developed in one way but there is something else that developed or was created in another way? I agree. This part kind of holds me back because I don’t know what that is. A soul created at fertilization of the ovum?

As for visiting Zorg aliens, they would have had to arrive millions and millions of years ago when life first appeared. During that long period, the aliens would have to adapt to our food supply, survive the environment, and find a place to educate their young in the fine art of designing. Now if they could do all that, then they would have to be rational which means that they, like humans, had to come from something super-natural. The conclusion would be that the super-natural designer would really have to be intelligent to keep all the designs straight especially when dealing with both humans and visiting aliens who stayed for dinner.

And that takes us back to my first response above. Omnipotence and omniscience. The supernatural designer must be God at some point.

Good grief did I really write the above. It must be past my bedtime because my brain is getting flakey. Getting?

I’ve got a headache. Too much thinking today. I’m not used to it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The human person is the only living organism in the universe who qualifies as an irreducible complexity.

Is God an irreducible complexity? Do you discount the possibility that there is life on other planets whose intelligence exceeds ours? Would you say they qualify? Are we the only creatures in the universe with souls?

BTW, what the heck do you mean by irreducible complexity?

 

[rossum]

Why don’t we help Dembski out?

Let us set up some simple parameters that would help us detect design.

On a scale of 1 to 10

Rate purpose
Rate number of right angles
Rate texture
Rate patterns
Rate complexity
Rate IR

We can add more.

Where do you want to start?

Snowflake.* Purpose: to look pretty, 10/10

• 120° angles: very many, 10/10
• texture: very smooth, 10/10
• patterns: billions, 10/10
• complexity: most complex, a few simple, 9/10
• IR: no infra red capability, 0/10

That is 49/60 = 82%.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Snowflake.

• Purpose: to look pretty, 10/10
• 120° angles: very many, 10/10
• texture: very smooth, 10/10
• patterns: billions, 10/10
• complexity: most complex, a few simple, 9/10
• IR: no infra red capability, 0/10

That is 49/60 = 82%.

rossum

Excellent start.

I would disagree the snowflake has a purpose to look pretty, (but I could be wrong) so I would reduce it.
Angles - good - contains patterns
Texture? 10/10 what is smoother than a snowflake - reduce
Complexity - hmmmm 10/10 nothing in the universe is more complex? Reduce

In any case the 82% is your benchmark.

How about a Refrigerator?

 

[lao_tzu]

Granny!

You were looking for insight into the inductive method a few days ago.

We rely on falsification to carve out what remains unfalsified as the proposition(s) that succeed.

There you have it, in a nutshell.

As ever, Jesse

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Touchstone http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
We rely on falsification to carve out what remains unfalsified as the proposition(s) that succeed.

Originally Posted by lao tzu http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Granny!

You were looking for insight into the inductive method a few days ago.
There you have it, in a nutshell.

As ever, Jesse

Thank you.

I have reposted this excellent explanation in my thread in Back Fence Forum

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7147287&postcount=192

I especially like it because it uses falsification which is a hallmark in the current scientific method. It is important to speak the same language as scientists.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is part of human nature.

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Betterave
It’s clear about one thing: God can do anything. He could design anything that exists to look exactly the way it does.

I think not…

The fact that God can make anything look like anything just means that no conceivable evidence could ever look more divinely designed than any other conceivable evidence. IDers claim that certain observations validate the design hypothesis. But if the particular observations cited in such cases had been completely different than they actually are, they would still be no more or less consistent with the hypothesis that they were divinely designed to be exactly that way. All the ways that they aren’t (no matter what we imagine they could have been like) would look just as divinely designed as the particular way that they are. So in what sense could it ever make sense to say that a particular observation validates divine design when nothing imagineable (even if we imagine a completely different world) could ever invalidate it?

You miss the point, I think, perhaps because you are fixated on God as raw power, pure ability to do anything. This one-sided perspective makes it obvious that whatever is done is simply explainable by the fact that it was able to be done. From this perspective it would be true that “All the ways that they aren’t (no matter what we imagine they could have been like) would look just as divinely designed as the particular way that they are.” But you seem to be dropping the crucial notion of ‘intelligence’ out of consideration…

Also, it’s hard to see why the same should not be true for an appeal to evolution: it doesn’t matter what we imagine might have been the case, that would have been exactly how it would have turned out as a result of purely ‘natural’ processes.

But that misses the point. We can apprehend the general notion of design and we *can *apply this notion in the manner of a scientific hypothesis about irreducible complexity to biological mechanisms and it is possible that our best analysis of certain phenomena could result in intelligent design being the best explanation for what we see in certain cases. And it is possible for such results to later be falsified (as history has shown).

On your point about validation/invalidation, you are right that ID in one sense can never be invalidated - the one which is based on God being the omniscient creator of everything (the efficient cause of nature itself) - but that is not the relevant sense here. The relevant sense here is that in which we look for instances of intelligent design that have been efficiently caused within the already-created natural world.