Powerful evidence for Design?

[Gaber]

Part 1

Of course you’re defending your own view and trying to convince me to accept it.

Ae you aware? Do I need to convince you of that? If you were not aware, would you be philosophizing? Or anything? So awareness is basic. You would have no sense of self and have no inculcated religon or world view if you were not aware. Do I nee oconvince you of that? What you are not aware of, and might enter your considerations, is that your awareness can be experienced in its purity. And taht is not my idea, personally, it is just something that people can do.

So iif it is what you are, and necessary for anything you put into it as contents by being a person, would it not be an advantage in philosophizing to have the experience of pure awareness and feel its significance so that you could more clearly and correctly argue about its ocntents? Not my idea. It is just a human condition not taken advantage of. It exists, Again not my idea. neither is it a fantasy or any intellectual construct. It is a condition. OUR condition, expereincible and fundamntal tounderstanding what it is we are in functon, and therefor informing our understanding of anything, especially of religion. It is the maskig and denial of it that makes what could be called “spiritual” so difficult to appraoch and seem to require priestcraft to engage.

But you’re doing this by repeating an assertion. From my perspective, I accept that you could be 100% correct. But I cannot validate that unless I experience what you claim I must. You state that your view is necessarily the default position.

It is not my view that is a defaould position. It is the fadt that before anything else, we are consious awareness being. That is not a view. It is a condition. It is THE conditon of human awareness and is experiencible. which expereince, even if it is on on’es death bed, one will become acquainted with as discovery of what happens whrn the mind you youe to tell your story to yourself shuts off. There is only some advantage to doing that voluntarily before one dies so it can be a useful factor in reasoning.

Again, where is the inclusiveness in that statement? The view that you’re offering – the things that you’re stating – are claimed as the necessary default.

Is it necessary for you to be awae in order to expereince? Is that my personal idea? Or do you find that to be your experience? Is awareness common to us? If so, would it as a principle not be a more substatial point of agreed departure on speculaton thatn already differentiated parochialisms?

You can only know that:

1. If you personally know the entire contents of human awareness (the God-view) yourself.
   or
2. God directly revealed this to you.

It is not the contents that is in question. It is whether or not one is aware that they are mistaking the contents for the container. This is a siomple fix and does not require a revelaton from God in any sense you might think it to be. It just requres a chinge in the direction of inquiry from examining the contents of awareness to the vessel itself.

Again, I admire your insights and you as a person but I can’t see any evidence that either of those things are true. So I can’t accept your own either-or scenario here.

It isn’t an either/or scenario. It is the deliniation of the dynamic of th heriachy of perception. fffAnd it is not hidden or occluded by anything other that the proceedural error of mistaking contents for container. It is the conscious use of what we ordinarily do anyway in ignorance and having a critical understandig of it, And that ordinary thing we do is be aware, but forget about it as a fish in water or an air brether. Ordinarilly one is not conscious of the need for air until the supply is cut off. then there is awareness of it. Similarly, whe thoughts are sut off, one sees what it is that one is without thoughts and an understanding of one’s relationship to thought itself becomes clear. And talking about what that means is like telling you about swimming with you as a dweller in the desert. And yet you are your own ocean, undiscovered.

Ok, that is perfectly understandable. I would just counter that, as above, there is a level of truth that is higher than what one gains from self-inquiry – namely, divine Revelation.
I don’t know if you’re getting at the notion that “we are all gods” or “I and God are one” – but if so, that’s another interesting view. If not, then the point stands – we have a revelation - through Christ and through the prophets. The Church holds the key to that highest Truth. And that’s really the foundation for understanding God (to the extent that we can).

Yes, of course that is so in your explanation of things to yourself, one of which each one of us must have. But where is it? Is it the container, or is it part of the contents? If it is part of the contents pointing to the container, which essentially it is, as one can laboriously discvover, why not go to the root of the matter? It doesn’t matter what words I use as describing the conclusion of one’s discovery. That is for the explorer to put words to. Often they are “I have not been decieved!”

So can go ahead and read the rule book and what is written about where it derived from and take on all of the highly extrapolated material that are codes of behavior and explanations in terms of book learning. Or you can revitaliaze them and make them all new in the twinkling of an eye and see where thy came from and why for yourself. then you can call it what you will. But from that standpoint Sts John of the Cross, Avila, Asisi, Chrysostom, Meister, etc, etc, etc, and the non Catholic ones aswell will have a radically new meaning for you. And you will see why they say what they do, and why they couldn’t say some of it and what that means.

You’re shredding the Gospel and the Deposit of Faith through your own subjective/personal filters. What is left is basically nothing. Since we do not have Christ’s words in an original text anywhere, then doesn’t your criticism leave us with a completely unreliable source?

That is an unfortuanate conclusion from a false premise that my viewpoint has anything to do with my personal opinion. It does not. It has to do with the structure of perceptioon as given by those expereinceing it for millenia. And no one expects anyone to take it on hearing it About one in a milliion do, I would guess, but who would think that thoughts aren’t what we are? Nonesesne! So not looking creates the most effective argument that you are what you are not, ie, your constructed picture of the world and the presumptioon that that is you inthe world. It is not. and that is only discerable by looking at the perceiver itself. And why do that? There is as little pressing necessity to do that as there is to enjoy music, or poetry, or any fine art. Even less. So it doesn’t get done, save through extreme dissatisfaction with one’s life, for religious or other reasons. In either case the eventual discovery, due to being made in His image and likeness, is the same.

 

[Gaber]

Part 2

Originally Posted by reggieM
No, I just spot many contradictions in your view. You use either-or/binary conclusions. You speak in absolutes (which are very non-inclusive to other realities and philosophies). And in this case, you define God as only a Source and not also as an arrival point.
You used the analogy of a door that we walk through – clearly, that’s a journey to arrival.
So, at the very least, I hope I can help you clarify your expressions.

Self or not self is both a basic in operational proceedures regarding $d navigation and of inquiry. The tool is the same in either case, it is what the tool is applied to that makes the difference. And if the subject is Reality, how is that not inclusive? Are you now proposing other Universes with other Gods and other Gospels? As for God being an arrival point, that can only be said from not having found, so the analogy of a door or some other analogy is used. Once throught the door, it is evident that it wasn’t ever there, and yet it is. First there is a mountain the there’s no mountain, then there is. It isn’t just some song lyrics or new age ****. Or, before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water. After enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water. I really don’t like using any of those, because for faithers they are so loaded with reactivity in so many cases. But guess what? Reality doesn’t care much about our opinion of it. It just IS.

This doesn’t follow for a few reasons. First, just because something is a speculation does not mean it is necessarily false. Secondly, the entire structure of your discussion here on CAF is based on several speculative, uncertain points that you (apparently) accept uncritically. If speculation alone was enough to cause the tower to fall, then all of your posts here would be, necessarily, failures.
We must build on speculations, just as you do while claiming otherwise.
As below, you criticized drawing conclusions then caught yourself making a conclusion.

I it a speculation that you are aware? Yes, some speculations, or hypotesis gathered from observatin result in a clarification of the dynamic being observed. But thoe clarifications can be clarified further, ad infinitum, as the brain applies it divisive abilty to existance. And that will never end and probably, as we see today, collectively, only accelerate. Speculation is the tower, and though it has its own integrity, it is not other thatn a perceptible embodiment of the principles that allow it to appear. What is the Principle that allows mind and thoughts to appear? this is discoverable and when found is known not to be specualtion, but substance.

And thaty are not speculative uncertain poits that I accept (apparently) uncritically. They are exegesis from the expereincing of a state that through time has yielded, even without contact between its discovereres, exactly the same exegesis. So if it was a fantasy of mind, there would be such differences as to make them too diverse to be classed as a group other than " differences." But they are not different, they are consitent, even to the point that if one has such an experience, the very words of Our Lord take on a radically different perspective. One, I might add, that does not require alll of the gymnasitcs and contortions that were derived from His words by lesser men. And by ap[plying Ocam’s razor, thtat’s a pretty strong indicator for me. Suddenly, the teo great commandments gel into a root of comprehension that fulfills alll the laws. Go figure.

Exactly. Our Lord taught us that very thing. He was asked to validate His claim as a prophet and he did not point to a pedigree or the testimony of others (although He could have with St. John the Baptist) – but pointed to his “works”. The lame walk, the blind see … That’s how we validate the experience that is claimed. That’s why we recognize His authority.Ys, that is right. And when the mind is made stright, all is leveled: the mountaions are made plane and the valleys are raised up. Do you serously think that the lame, halt, and blind are only physical handicaps? But I have seen that change, as well. So there you are.

I think you can see the difficult position this puts you in. Your claims (as I read them) are very significant. You have a privileged view of the universe and of all reality. You understand truths through direct experience that all philosophy must be built on, necessarily.

You have no more of a difficult position thatn you put yourself into. I don not have apriveliged virew of the Universe. As I told Tonyrey, “your refusal does nto constitute my privelege.” You onlu have the self imposed handicap of not yet having looked at yourself with any useful degree or ind of inquiry, prayer, or contemplation. And myabe it isn’'t for you.Nothing wrond with that. I’m only pointing out that from within the mind only so much can be accomplished, and that accomplishment lacks a depth critical to the kind of vision it allegedly encomappsses by intellectual assertion.

On the contrary. I’m using it as the foundation for inclusivity and depth. As proven many times, you cannot begin to post here without that foundation. It’s the grammar of the spiritual life, of our understanding of God. Sure, we can rise to great poetry from that point, but you have to start with foundations – which are explicable. Your foundations simply are not. Virtually nobody can start from direct experience alone. We need a means of interpretation.

Yes, we do need a means of interpretaion. But of what? Do you not start from expereince alone? You are alone and you expereince and you build a structuree of self explanation that matches to some degree a kind of consensus reality. That is a structure that is useful up to a point. I was a rather ardent proselytizer for the Catholic faitrh for a long time,.

But suddenly I found it lacking in directness. Later, I found that it does have the support of the Truth, but has become so veiled and complex due to its politicization and historicizingf of what was meant to be an example, that it became too cumbersome, like a corporation, to see the needs of its own “employees.” Have you ever worked for Safewya or some such? Of course it works. But I wouldn’t want to work there. I can get the same thing done on much shorter order and far more simply working somewhere else. My choice. Had to make it or go mad. But it suits many people, and that’s great until they hit an impasse.

Here we’re in full agreement. I will merely claim that teleological arguments or the cosmological arguments are the grammar or semantic rules for understanding “some aspects” of God and reality. They’re a necessary step in gaining a full knowledge.

Then why are they abandoned at the end? And how does it happen that those who don’t know the “cosmological” argument can yet discover the stuff they are made of before thought?

You’re taking a very negative view and misinterpreting what natural theology and cosmological arguments are for. You’re applying the wrong standard to them and therefore condemning them for being something they were never intended to be.

Sure, some people might misuse those arguments as “the only” method we have for accessing truth about God. And yes, I have seen some Catholics even on this forum fall into that dangerous idea – over-intellectualizing and rationalizing about God and never wanting to experience Him through prayer and contemplation.

So, I agree with your warning but not with your blanket condemnation of these arguments. They have a purpose. Not as a stop-gap, but as a step in our learning process. If one disregards the rules of logic, for example, he will not be able to reason correctly and this can affect his spiritual life, actually.

That is so, and I meant about the idea of natural theology as a be-all and end-all. As i said somewhere else, transformation is fueled by a rich personality and experience.
It could be, but I disagree. The Design argument starts at the lowest level and then moves to the higher. That’s discursive reason – inferring causes from effects.
That’s a very necessary process – although not the only one. Yes, it is an ascending argument, as is the Catholic Church as an instiution. And that is fine if it has as well the descending component of what might be called fullfilled mysticism. And it is my contention that the ascending must be founded on the desending, or it is not built on solid ground. In short, you can’t get to where you want to go if don’t realize that you are always already there.

 

[reggieM]

Part 1

Ae you aware? Do I need to convince you of that? If you were not aware, would you be philosophizing? Or anything? So awareness is basic.

Ok, good point and thanks for the correction. I was mistaken. You’re right - you’re talking about a universal foundation and that is not a private opinion. I’ll only point out that Being comes before awareness – so Being is the foundation and awareness a property of Being.

But an important point here also … you are offering awareness as a basis and basically citing a common-sense support. Do you need to convince me? No – but remember, I am a fellow Catholic and I share what you have, so we can cite common sense.

But Tony and many others on CAF engage in discussions all the time with people who deny that we truly have awareness at all - in the common sense way you’re using the term. For them, awareness is merely a chemical function.

So there’s your challenge, if you want to take it … what is the origin of this awareness? Is it a product of molecular evolution? How do you know?

If we could get materialist-atheists to simply agree that the spiritual nature of humanity is obvious, or a common sense fact, then we wouldn’t need to work on the argument from design and many others like it.

You would have no sense of self and have no inculcated religon or world view if you were not aware. Do I nee oconvince you of that?

As above, I agree with you but we do need to convince people who reduce awareness to a biophysical process alone. There can be no metaphysical “awareness of awareness” in that worldview, and that’s why there is no religion in that view either.
In order to be aware of awareness, or conscious of consciousness – something above (beyond, other than, transcendent to) consciousness must be at work.

Can our self see our self? We talk about “higher self” – so there are layers of awareness.

With that, I’m sure you know that it’s not easy even to define terms. We use the term awareness and I’ll fully accept it, but fortunately, I’m not going to start arguing about what the term means. But many people will do that because they deny that we have a spiritual nature at all.

So, we try to start with the Design Argument, or other similar arguments to reveal to them (and ourselves) that we can observe evidence of an intelligence that transcends nature.

I really can’t see how it’s possible that you oppose that argument so strongly. To me, it seems perfect for anyone who has an artistic sense. What greater artistic masterpieces of genius can we find than in nature itself? Many people who are absorbed in hard science and technology have dulled themselves to what beauty really is. That’s a side-effect of science which has to break things apart into components. But great art puts things together into a unity of meaning and expression.

To me, that’s as obvious as something like awareness. It’s common sense.

I can use that argument all the time. A hypothetical: I see a work by Pietro Della Francesca. Let’s say I’m unfortunate enough to never have seen one of his paintings before. I’m struck by the power and beauty – the color, the facial expressions are alive, the balance is perfect.

Those are observations - empirical evidence. I draw an inference: “This work must be created by an artist with a lot of talent and therefore, his other works must also be good.”

I check out a book with prints of his paintings and Yes! I predicted it correctly. That one painting was not an accident. He has many more of great quality also.

We look at nature – the order, symmetry, harmony, clarity and perfection of beauty is blatantly obvious. I infer …

What you are not aware of, and might enter your considerations, is that your awareness can be experienced in its purity. And taht is not my idea, personally, it is just something that people can do.

That needs more explanation. Let’s skip the definition of awareness and ask about “experience” … Can you experience experience? If so, what is experiencing the experience? Is it you? Can you only do that two times, or is it an infinite regress (I experience my experience of my experience of my … to infinity).

So iif it is what you are, and necessary for anything you put into it as contents by being a person, would it not be an advantage in philosophizing to have the experience of pure awareness and feel its significance so that you could more clearly and correctly argue about its ocntents?

Yes, and again that is a good point that I misjudged earlier.

Not my idea. It is just a human condition not taken advantage of. It exists, Again not my idea. neither is it a fantasy or any intellectual construct. It is a condition. OUR condition, expereincible and fundamntal tounderstanding what it is we are in functon, and therefor informing our understanding of anything, especially of religion. It is the maskig and denial of it that makes what could be called “spiritual” so difficult to appraoch and seem to require priestcraft to engage.

I don’t like the negative reference in your last phrase but again, I agree and greatly appreciate your point of view. I think it’s extremely valuable.

There is only some advantage to doing that voluntarily before one dies so it can be a useful factor in reasoning.

I think there are many more advantages than that also – but yes, agreed.

That is for the explorer to put words to. Often they are “I have not been decieved!”

It’s essential to arrive at that conclusion and that’s a good reason why people will approach with caution. The potential for deception is very high. Evil does not disappear merely because a person has discovered some higher spiritual truths – on the contrary, temptations become more subtle and dangerous.
We defeat evil by good. And good in this case, is goodness in one’s life. This is the basic, ordinary stuff of virtues and humility and reverence for God, etc.

So can go ahead and read the rule book and what is written about where it derived from and take on all of the highly extrapolated material that are codes of behavior and explanations in terms of book learning. Or you can revitaliaze them and make them all new in the twinkling of an eye and see where thy came from and why for yourself. then you can call it what you will. But from that standpoint Sts John of the Cross, Avila, Asisi, Chrysostom, Meister, etc, etc, etc, and the non Catholic ones aswell will have a radically new meaning for you. And you will see why they say what they do, and why they couldn’t say some of it and what that means.

I find something brilliant and powerfully attractive in that paragraph – thank you again.
I would only say that it’s not us that revitalizes things – it’s the power of God in us, through grace. But they do become “all new”, with that awareness, I don’t doubt for a second. Actually, that is exactly what the Church today needs – a greater awareness of the depth of our spiritual tradition.

And why do that? There is as little pressing necessity to do that as there is to enjoy music, or poetry, or any fine art. Even less. So it doesn’t get done, save through extreme dissatisfaction with one’s life, for religious or other reasons. In either case the eventual discovery, due to being made in His image and likeness, is the same.

As above, there are many very good reasons for that pursuit. It does take some sacrifice and I would say courage also. I admire you for the intensity of your interest in higher spiritual matters because I know that it cuts against what our culture and way of life usually is interested in.

 

[reggieM]

And if the subject is Reality, how is that not inclusive?
Are you now proposing other Universes with other Gods and other Gospels?

No, I’m arguing against such things. But I’m only using inclusiveness as a measure because that seems to be important to you. So, I’m questioning how that can be a standard by which to measure this topic (and it isn’t).

First there is a mountain the there’s no mountain, then there is. It isn’t just some song lyrics or new age ****.

But it does become very much like new age *** if you start pointing in the direction of syncreticism and personal awareness as the highest goal.
That’s a big issue. Because if we’re talking about some mental exercise that brings about a certain awareness then that is very far from anything like the Christian Faith. It’s also a lot closer to the people talking about crystals and tarot cards.

You mentioned before …

Sts John of the Cross, Avila, Asisi, Chrysostom, Meister

And aside from a high level of mystical awareness, there are some things all of those people have in common in their spiritual life:

1. A loyalty to the Church Christ founded
2. A consistent, public and enthusiastic acknowledgement of Christ alone as Savior and Lord – through his Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection.
3. Upholding and proclaiming orthodox Catholic doctrine
4. A mastery of Christian virtues – especially humility and obedience as guides to the spiritual life

There is a lot more like that. But at the risk of being too critical, I’m not seeing that in your point of view. What I am seeing, instead is an orientation to one’s own awareness.

That’s one thing the saints didn’t do – it’s no’t a focus on oneself – but away from self. Not to nothingness but to the fullness which is the Blessed Trinity.
This is true of all the greatest Catholic mystics – saints who could bilocate, who could read the hearts and minds of people, who could levitate, who raised the dead, who spend days in ecstatic state, who actually transcended the need to eat or drink … none of this was a question of self-awareness, but rather, self-forgetfulness and complete focus and love on Christ (and Father and Spirit).

While we can recognize some spiritual insights in Buddhism and Hinduism, the orientation and final goal is a lot different. If we arrive at a point where it seems like conversion to the life that Christ gives is not necessary at all – then there’s something wrong with whatever enlightenment we received.

I’ll go a little farther with this topic itself.

I’ve been thinking about it and I conclude:
An acceptance of the Argument from Design is **necessary **for any Catholic. It’s not just a nice optional idea, but it’s required as part of what we need to know about God.

Going even beyond that – the antiDesign position actually denies the respect and worship that we owe to God. In order to worship God truly, we need to acknowledge Him as Creator – thus, the Design argument is a necessary condition.

Is it a speculation that you are aware?

Since we are not the creators of reality and we cannot fully comprehend (encircle) all of it, and we can only see things from our own human, individual perspective – everything is based on assumptions and speculations, even the idea that we are aware, or that we exist.

But we test those assumptions and speculations and realize that they are reliable. We can trust them – but note, it is trust. We can have a high degree of certainty. We can call it “absolute certainty”, but only because we accept a framework where we can say: “if my assumptions are correct about my awareness, my sanity, the accuracy of my sensory data, and about what I think reality is – then I am absolutely certain about this or that”.

What is the Principle that allows mind and thoughts to appear? this is discoverable and when found is known not to be specualtion, but substance.

The thing we argue about in this kind of discussion is as I asked before:

What is the origin of mind? What is mind composed of? Is it physical alone?

So if it was a fantasy of mind, there would be such differences as to make them too diverse to be classed as a group other than " differences."

I showed you some differences with the saints you listed. This suggests that you’re working with some degree of fantasy.

But they are not different, they are consitent, even to the point that if one has such an experience, the very words of Our Lord take on a radically different perspective. One, I might add, that does not require alll of the gymnasitcs and contortions that were derived from His words by lesser men. And by ap[plying Ocam’s razor, thtat’s a pretty strong indicator for me. Suddenly, the teo great commandments gel into a root of comprehension that fulfills alll the laws. Go figure.

Ok, that could be explained in more detail. As long as you’re not re-interpreting Our Lord’s words in ways that radicallly depart from what has been handed to us through the spiritual tradition – then that’s a good thing.

Ys, that is right. And when the mind is made stright, all is leveled: the mountaions are made plane and the valleys are raised up. Do you serously think that the lame, halt, and blind are only physical handicaps? But I have seen that change, as well. So there you are.

No, it’s not just physical. But I’m not asking if you’ve seen a change elsewhere, but rather, if you have effected the change. If you could confer the power that you recommend, then you would do it. That would be a good indicator of your spiritual authority. To be powerless to actually make the blind see – even just intellectually, says something also.

There are all kinds of charismatic gifts – but we have to be careful to recognize … they are gifts. They’re not something we created. Whatever gift we receive, we receive with gratitude and use it in service of the One Who gave it.

You have no more of a difficult position thatn you put yourself into. I don not have apriveliged virew of the Universe. As I told Tonyrey, “your refusal does nto constitute my privelege.” You onlu have the self imposed handicap of not yet having looked at yourself with any useful degree or ind of inquiry, prayer, or contemplation.

As above – you offer a wildly speculative claim about me. You know very little about me – almost nothing, and yet you make a judgement about my spiritual life, comparing it negatively with your own. “My spiritual growth is better than yours” – is essentially what you’re saying. And in doing that, you destroy your own credibility. Egoism is the first sign that something is wrong in the one who claims to be enlightened.

I’m only pointing out that from within the mind only so much can be accomplished, and that accomplishment lacks a depth critical to the kind of vision it allegedly encomappsses by intellectual assertion.

Here’s where I disagree again. With the mind, everything can be accomplished. In fact, the mind has an infinite potential – it can extend to the infinite presence of God. The mind is not the brain – it is a spiritual entity, created by God as an aspect of the immortal human soul. When God enlightens the mind, the mind can see Him.

“When He appears we will be like Him, because we will see Him as He is.”

I was a rather ardent proselytizer for the Catholic faitrh for a long time,.

I wish you still were and I pray that you will become so again.

But suddenly I found it lacking in directness. Later, I found that it does have the support of the Truth, but has become so veiled and complex due to its politicization and historicizingf of what was meant to be an example, that it became too cumbersome, like a corporation, to see the needs of its own “employees.” Have you ever worked for Safewya or some such? Of course it works. But I wouldn’t want to work there. I can get the same thing done on much shorter order and far more simply working somewhere else. My choice. Had to make it or go mad. But it suits many people, and that’s great until they hit an impasse.

No, I have never worked at Safeway or a place like that. I disagree with your view on the Church. The Church has an infinite depth and an inexhaustable wealth of Truth. Outside of the Church there is just loss and confusion – along with some noble efforts to find Her.

Then why are they abandoned at the end?

They are not abandoned. As I said above, those arguments are essential in growing in knowledge of God, and therefore in worshiping Him as we should.

And how does it happen that those who don’t know the “cosmological” argument can yet discover the stuff they are made of before thought?

I would prefer a lot more specifics here. Who and what are you talking about?

Yes, it is an ascending argument, as is the Catholic Church as an instiution. And that is fine if it has as well the descending component of what might be called fullfilled mysticism. And it is my contention that the ascending must be founded on the desending, or it is not built on solid ground.

I think we mentioned many times, you can’t start with the descending if a person completely rejects the notion of a hierarchical order. These are the people who live in the flattened universe of materialism. There is just matter and energy. No God, no soul, no eternity, no grace, no spiritual awareness. Everything happens through nature alone.

You responded already to a person on this thread just recently who openly asserts those ideas. You simply cannot start with an explanation that begins with God – you have to work up, in ascending order, to God.
[/quote]

 

[Jason_Firestone]

There is no scientific evidence that gives a plausible explanation for a material origin of the DNA code.

We do know how complex, specified, functional information can be produced – and it is always the result of intelligence.
Since there is no known natural cause of such information, then intelligence is the only reasonable source.

To deny this is to deny that intelligence can create specified functional information.

Many thanks and God bless! I’ve enjoyed your insights and I hope you have a great retreat.

Evening kids. Of course it is highly unlikely that there will ever be found any actual piece of evidence, in terms of an ancient “intermedite” form(s) where the present funcional DNA system is seen, or developing, there are many models where the probability of it’s formation is far from zero, (along with the intermediate RNA possibilities). Surely you know about some of these. What our pattern-seeking brains see as “designed” may have just arisen. Did God specifically “create” the Mandelbrot Set ? The pejorative use of the English word “chance”, instead of the perhaps more appropriate word “probable” or “probability” does not fly, (especially if God set up the probability parameters)…it just removes the problem a step back. Ultimately, the ID argument remains “god of the gaps”, and will always run the risk of being answered.

Matthew 16:4
"A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”

 

[Gaber]

Evening kids. Of course it is highly unlikely that there will ever be found any actual piece of evidence, in terms of an ancient “intermedite” form(s) where the present funcional DNA system is seen, or developing, there are many models where the probability of it’s formation is far from zero, (along with the intermediate RNA possibilities). Surely you know about some of these. What our pattern-seeking brains see as “designed” may have just arisen. Did God specifically “create” the Mandelbrot Set ? The pejorative use of the English word “chance”, instead of the perhaps more appropriate word “probable” or “probability” does not fly, (especially if God set up the probability parameters)…it just removes the problem a step back. Ultimately, the ID argument remains “god of the gaps”, and will always run the risk of being answered.

Matthew 16:4
"A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”

Thanks, JF. Yours is a wonderful deliniation.

And I am sorry that due to a time constraiont I cannot go through ReggieM’s last post. But both his last liine and yours, JF, prompts me to copy and paste from another thread, Where Is Jesus Now?:

Jesus told someone once “let the dead bury the dead.” Yes? Luke 9:60 I beleive.

There is a point of subtlty (regarding the sign of Jonah, for the sake of this c&p) that has concerned me for some time regarding Teaching. It is that Mark 4:33,34 points to something that is studiously ignored, if you ask me. It is that we only have a few sentences from Jesus in the “record.” And half of those are from the OT pretty much. And we also know that Jesus was in Egypt and there is arguable evidence that He might have been elsewhere as well, even to Kashmir, for instance. In that area a Lahsa monestary is said by Faber-Kaiser and some others, I believe, to have records of a Sage from the West who loved children and said things that are near exact quotes from the Gospels, about two thousand years ago.

My point is that much of what Jesus says can be seen as congruent with certain Wisdom Teachings whose point is a kind of transformation that “makes the whole world new in the twinkiling of an eye.” And that Teaching is ancient, and has such faces as Zen and Advaita, and some other Philosophies most contemporarily dilineated in process by such as Franklin Merrel-Wolff,* and in the Roman Catholic tradition Bernadette Roberts** .

From the perspective of someone who has reached the accomplishment proponed by those two, many Catholic Saints, and countless non Catholic Sages through the ages, the oprdinary person, in a sense, though walking around seeming to be awake, is funtionally “dead” on the much higher level of Insight that Jesus certainly operated from and it can be hypothesised that these others at least approximated.

As a correlary, this might be interesting:

"…We define thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enought to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued ‘either-or’ logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can’t use any sort of logic and will discard observed fact as blithly as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.

"That is why there is always room at the top, why a man with a leetle more on the ball can so easily become governor, millionaire, or college president–and why homo sap is sure to be displaced by New Man, because there is so much room for improvement and evoloution never stops.

"Here and there among ordinary men is a rare individual who really thinks, can and does use logic in a single feild–he’s often as stupid as the rest outside his study or his laboratory–but he can think, if he is not disturbed, sick, or frightened. This rare individual is responsible for all the progress made by the race; the others reluctantly adopt his results. Much as the ordinary man dislikes and distrusts and persecutes the process of thinking he is forced to accept the reslults occasionally, because thinking is efficient compared with his own maunderings. He may still plant his corn by the dark of the moon, but he will plant better corn developed by better men than he.

"Still rarer is the man who thinks habitually, who applies reason, rather than habit pattern, to all his activity. Unless he masks himself, his is a dangerous life; he is regarded as queer, untrustworthy, subversive of public morals; a pink monkey among the brown monkeys–a fatal mistake. Unless the pink monkey can dye homself brown before he gets caught.

"The brown monkey’s instinct to kill is correct; such men are dangerous to all monkey customs.

"Rarest of all is the man who can and does reason at all times, quickly, accurately, inclusively, despite hope or fear or bodily distress, without egocentric bias or thalmic disturbance, with correct memory, with clear distinction between fact, assumption and non-fact. Such men exist, Joe, They are “New Man”–human in all respects, indistinguishable in all appearnces or under the scalpel from homo sap, yet as unlike him in action as the Sun is unlke a single candle.

~RA Heinlein, Gulf, short novel in Assignment in Eternity c 1949, '53, '81 RAH

So in my mind what you are saying has the requirement of physical death, (ie resurrection,) I see as a transfomation from the death of ignorance that the vast majority of us live in. And that is not a “death” mitigated, but only somewhat allevieated by faith, which imho is but a preliminary step if righty used to what constitutes a vastly different order of insight and understanding. I say this because as a student of this dynamic it appearst to me that the crucial factor is not belief, as such, but an exhaustion, if you will, of the discursive mind by, yes, prayer, meditation, or contemplation, but also even by vast depression or even trauma. The point is to be able to get past the self talk and story telling of the discursive mind in order to have a moment of vision that allows the Grace that is aways already there to descend and bestow a new persp[ective that can be labeled as “born again” (not in the revivalist sense!!!) or resurrected. That is how radically different such a state is from normal human awareness!

I could say much more, but have time constraints here. Thanks for your attention in reading, if you go this far!

* The Philosophy of Consciousness Without An Object

** The Experience of No Self 
__________________

[/QUOTE]
[/quote]

 

[Gaber]

…I think we mentioned many times, you can’t start with the descending if a person completely rejects the notion of a hierarchical order. These are the people who live in the flattened universe of materialism. There is just matter and energy. No God, no soul, no eternity, no grace, no spiritual awareness. Everything happens through nature alone.

You responded already to a person on this thread just recently who openly asserts those ideas. You simply cannot start with an explanation that begins with God – you have to work up, in ascending order, to God.

Don’t have as much time to devote to this today as usual, so I’ll get back to the rest when I can, But I’ll say something about the above: Jesus started with the descending and never went to the ascending because it is not the pervue of demonstration to use materialism to build a case for what allows it to be, whatever the state that sponsors such a view. And how do you know that you are not yourself living in flatland if you predicate things on mere faith and argument from the material world, whatever your investment of faith in a paradigme you took on from someone else’s description? And your statement “You simply cannot start with an explanation that begins with God – you have to work up, in ascending order, to God” is exactly the anthropomorphism I have stated constitutes your arguments. How do you use “not God” stuff as a proof of the Allness of God as proceeding from the lesser to build the greater as if it was made of parts you claim to have, or need to have, complete competency about? There is nothing in materialism that has what you seek to do in it. That is so no matter how exquisitly useful negating mental objects as being God is in going beyond the mind, but that is pertinent to one’s own expereince, not as an intellectualized “proof” to someone making assertions that deny the reflexivity of the very tool they are using to deny with.

 

[reggieM]

Evening kids. Of course it is highly unlikely that there will ever be found any actual piece of evidence, in terms of an ancient “intermedite” form(s) where the present funcional DNA system is seen, or developing, there are many models where the probability of it’s formation is far from zero, (along with the intermediate RNA possibilities).

First of all – welcome back.

Since the present functional DNA system exhibits striking and magnificent hallmarks of what we consider design, then it is far more probable that it was designed.

Surely you know about some of these.

Those are wild speculations with almost zero probability. Of course, even a one in 10^20 possibility is more than zero probability, but what is that really saying?

“The weakest point is our lack of understanding of the origin of life. No evidence remains that we know of to explain the steps that started life here, billions of years ago.” – Dr. Robert Shapiro, Origin of Life researcher.

“Most chemists believe as I do that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of chemicals in the prebiotic earth. How? I have no idea… On the basis of all chemistry I know, it seems astonishingly improbable.” – Dr. George Whitesides

What our pattern-seeking brains see as “designed” may have just arisen.

Actually, that’s what scientists are claiming, basically. By chance, incredibly complex, functional, digital coded information arose - or emerged. Why is that claim preferable and more credible than the idea that the structures are the product of Design?

Did God specifically “create” the Mandelbrot Set ?

I think the challenge returns to you because you have to start with what you think God is, as Creator and what you think He created. In classical Catholic theology, God created all things since they were all necessarily a product of His Mind. So, I’m looking for common ground to discuss this with you.
What do you think God created and how to you think he created it?

The pejorative use of the English word “chance”, instead of the perhaps more appropriate word “probable” or “probability” does not fly, (especially if God set up the probability parameters)…it just removes the problem a step back

I’m not sure if I’m following your critique here. Yes, it moves the problem a step back – so the problem remains. If you’re concerned about “god of the gaps” then you’ll really have to claim that matter and energy are the cause of all things – and thus, science can explain every aspect of the universe.

That’s pretty basic materialism. It’s not necessarily atheistic, but about the best you can get from a god in that worldview is the god of Deism.

Ultimately, the ID argument remains “god of the gaps”, and will always run the risk of being answered.

Sure, as is true with any scientific theory (as evolution claims to fill all the gaps today – even where there is conflicting evidence). If someone can show a natural process that can regularly and predictably generate highly complex specified functionality as is found in the cell and in many aspects of living beings, then there’s no immediate need to refer to the role of Intelligence (although the super-structure of laws and processes remains unexplained).

But until that day, ID theory is by far the most reasonable proposal we have to work with.

 

[reggieM]

Don’t have as much time to devote to this today as usual, so I’ll get back to the rest when I can, But I’ll say something about the above: Jesus started with the descending and never went to the ascending

One of us is misunderstanding what you meant by ascending and descending.
I assumed it meant the discursive method that I already explained – inferrring causes from effects and additionally, moving from the lower level of reality to the higher. Moving from material to spiritual. Moving from temporal to eternal. Moving from evidence from human life to understanding of God.

The descending would start with God and then explain how things happen on earth and in human life. It starts with belief, knowledge, recognition and awareness of God (where does all of that come from in the first place?) – then applies the spiritual knowledge to mankind and the universe.

The Gospels have both approaches. To claim, as you have here, that Jesus never used the ascending method is bizarre. Parables, stories, analogies, similitudes, commonly understood images - the Prodigal son and his Father, the sower went out to sow the field … seriously, the ascending view is overwhelmingly abundant. You’re claiming He ***never ***used that?

There’s the Design Argument itself in the Gospels: “Behold the lilies of the field …”

St. Paul made this crystal clear in Romans 1:19-20 and it’s the classic text we should know regarding the Design Argument.

… because it is not the pervue of demonstration to use materialism to build a case for what allows it to be, whatever the state that sponsors such a view.

If someone could explain that that statement means I would appreciate it.

How do you use “not God” stuff as a proof of the Allness of God as proceeding from the lesser to build the greater as if it was made of parts you claim to have, or need to have, complete competency about?

I use not-Design stuff as a boundary for understanding Design. We progress from lesser to greater – thus the lesser has a reference point to a greater.
When we talk about the Allness of God, we explain that human intelligences are not God themselves, as much as they might think they’re God. There is a Creation – and thus a Creator. God is present in all of His works since he is the cause of all being and being is innermost in all things. Thus, God is in all things. But God is not univocal with all things. Again, you are not God. I know that because you do not possess the maximal values that only God can possess.

There is nothing in materialism that has what you seek to do in it. That is so no matter how exquisitly useful negating mental objects as being God is in going beyond the mind, but that is pertinent to one’s own expereince, not as an intellectualized “proof” to someone making assertions that deny the reflexivity of the very tool they are using to deny with.

As I pointed out, and I don’t think you understand – the discussion is oriented around the question of materialism and scientism.

 

[reggieM]

You’re irrepressible, Reggie! How can I restrain you?

Hmmm… On second thoughts I’d be doing you - and me - and everyone else an unDesigned disservice.

With the amount I’ve been writing maybe a bit of designed repression would be a good thing after all.

I’m sure that is an unsurmountable obstacle for the non-Designers! How can a mechanistic explanation of reality justify itself let alone anything else? It amounts to accidentally produced machinery succeeding in discovering how efficient it is.

Right because any mechanism must be directed towards a goal. That is especially a major problem when we consider the parts of a mechanism that have to work together in a dependent function or succession (first this happens, then this, then a delay, then this). That means the mechanism is oriented to the future. But chance, unintelligent processes and blind matter cannot consider any future state. There is no need for a future at all – and so, no need for a mechanism. There’s no need for anything to sustain itself.

The beauty of this thread is that everything is the grist to the mill. I’ve already thought of its successor - if I’m spared long enough to see it materialise. (Darn it! Another unfortunate choice of word… :

“Overwhelming evidence for Design?”

To be followed by “Irrefutable evidence for Design?”

 

[reggieM]

"Rarest of all is the man who can and does reason at all times, quickly, accurately, inclusively, despite hope or fear or bodily distress, without egocentric bias or thalmic disturbance, with correct memory, with clear distinction between fact, assumption and non-fact. Such men exist, Joe, They are “New Man”–human in all respects, indistinguishable in all appearnces or under the scalpel from homo sap, yet as unlike him in action as the Sun is unlke a single candle.

~RA Heinlein, Gulf, short novel in Assignment in Eternity c 1949, '53, '81 RAH

Let me guess … Mr. Heinlein just happened to be one of those “New Men” himself. And you, Gaber, are one also – right?
If so, we’re very lucky to have one of the “rarest of all men” in our midst.

 

[reggieM]

After Watson and Crick we know that genes themselves … are living strings of pure digital information. What is more they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact discs, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers … but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal. Our genetic system, which is the universal system for all life on the planet is digital to the core … DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do … DNA messages … are … pure digital code.
– Richard Dawkins: * River Out of Eden*

 

[tonyrey]

With the amount I’ve been writing maybe a bit of designed repression would be a good thing after all.

Please don’t abandon me again! Writing less: perhaps. Writing nothing: out of the question!

Right because any mechanism must be directed towards a goal. That is especially a major problem when we consider the parts of a mechanism that have to work together in a dependent function or succession (first this happens, then this, then a delay, then this). That means the mechanism is oriented to the future.

The same problem arises with living organisms that don’t know what they’re doing. So materialists evade the problem by substituting “teleonomy” for “teleology” - as if a name makes all the difference! A machine by any other name would be still a machine trapped in the prison of the present.

But chance, unintelligent processes and blind matter cannot consider any future state.

There is no need for a future at all – and so, no need for a mechanism. There’s no need for anything to sustain itself.

“Reason not the need!” would say the sceptic - like Lear. But then the poor old king had a conscience:

“O! I have ta’en too little care of this.”

• which is missing in the sceptic’s scheme of** things**…

To be followed by “Irrefutable evidence for Design?”

That depends on our progress, Reggie - and I’m certainly not ruling out the other contributors.

 

[Gaber]

Let me guess … Mr. Heinlein just happened to be one of those “New Men” himself. And you, Gaber, are one also – right?
If so, we’re very lucky to have one of the “rarest of all men” in our midst.

I offered that passage as a corellary to the preceeding idea and named no names nor assumed your conclusion. But I met one once. Pretty staggering. And it wasn’t RAH, though he did send me a very pleasant Christmas card once.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Thanks, JF. Yours is a wonderful deliniation.

And I am sorry that due to a time constraiont I cannot go through ReggieM’s last post. But both his last liine and yours, JF, prompts me to copy and paste from another thread, Where Is Jesus Now?:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Unfortunately the probabiltiy number presented by one of our members is wildly incorrect, and completely out of date.

science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

It has been repeatedly experimentally shown that the probability is nowhere near as high as some ID supporters claim. The ONLY reason to assume it represents “design” is if one can mathematically demonstrate that the probabilities involved are NOT possible from known “naturally” working/functioning/assembling/arising systems…and we KNOW what the numbers are. Asserting someting without the numbers can be very dangerous, especially in discussions with those who do not share the faith. We cannot afford to be wrong here.

But to your post, Mr. Gaber … I have never heard that there is evidence that Our Lord went to the locations you mention. Could you kindly point me to some. That would be a whole new area for me to examine. My own personal area of expertise in these matters, (apart from my own field of Quantum Physics and Mathematics), is ancient Languages, and in particular the Ancient Sumerian Myth Systems, (which I will, concurrently, get my PhD in), along with the science degrees, (God willing). But, in the end, your position is almost identical to my own, being a hopeful comtemplative. I very much see the position we are left with, is the mystical Cloud of Unknowing, as we stand before Almighty God, in humble contemplative silence, not demanding a sign. A human interpretation of any sign is bound to shift, and change, and must not be turned into an Absolute, (or even a requirement).

 

[Jason_Firestone]

We are not discussing whether there WAS an Intelligent Designer, but whether there is “natural evidence” for that. So it is not necessarily demanded of people of faith. It’s apparently a matter of opinion, depending almost completely on the depth and views one has of Math and Statistics. No one here has yet to explain how the non-intuitive nature of the universe, (again … the fact that Relativity is non-intuitive, Heisenberg is not understandable to 99.5 percent of humans, and 99.99 % of humans could not even begin to explain what a Dirac Spinner was, much less write out it’s formula), leads me to think this “sign” business is a very slippery slope.
Jason

 

[rossum]

We are not discussing whether there WAS an Intelligent Designer, but whether there is “natural evidence” for that. So it is not necessarily demanded of people of faith. It’s apparently a matter of opinion, depending almost completely on the depth and views one has of Math and Statistics. No one here has yet to explain how the non-intuitive nature of the universe, (again … the fact that Relativity is non-intuitive, Heisenberg is not understandable to 99.5 percent of humans, and 99.99 % of humans could not even begin to explain what a Dirac Spinner was, much less write out it’s formula), leads me to think this “sign” business is a very slippery slope.
Jason

You might well find that a Dirac Spinor is even more difficult to explain.

rossum

 

[Gaber]

You might well find that a Dirac Spinor is even more difficult to explain.

rossum

Fascinating. While math is so precise a language as to be functionally descriptive of phenomenal dynamics to degrees and in kinds not even imaginable by the ordinary person, it is also in its higher realms, by report of many mathematicians, a highly contemplative and intuitive endeavor. I cannot imagine the beauty and wonder someone capable of such calculations must see and feel. It becomes less a mystery as to why math and music are so related. As well it might point to why musician have the only diferentiable brain under the knife from any other, or why those who study keyboard before seven y.o. tend to be about 30 points higher in IQ by some measures. Both in their way correspond structurally to the structure of the human feild of expereince in terms of relationships.

As an artist and writer, I find it fascinationg that in order to discover meaning and depth in the work at hand, as I approach the finer reaches of my own abilities, however they might compare in other’s eyes to their own standards, my tactic is to look deeply as I can into what can best be described as nothing.I do this because that blank emptyness is the only place in my expereince from which arises meaning and significance. It is the utter and complete functional confession on my part that personally I know nothing. It is the confession that significance and meaning resides in the Reality which is so astonishingly large that to my hjuman form of awareness, the subject/object relative realm of 4D encounter, it appears to have zero, zip, nada, goose egg, no contents and no qualities.

And I find as well that I can best do this sort of looking when I’ve exhausted my ordinary and habitual knowledge of my topic or form. I often say that I have to ask “it” to reveal itself to me, and I am present as listening. In fact, the single piece that I would consider to be art in my highest sense of its meaning, where it continues to inform me, as distinct from me seeing ways to make it better, I made that piece while lecturing to a group of students in a middle school class in Brooklyn. My mind was on what I was saying, not so much on what my hands were doing, though my awareness necessarily included both.

So, did I desiign that piece? What I know is that I posed the “problem” by starting with an “arbitrary” form. Then I watched, in a “listening” frame of mind with curiosity to discover what might be the expression of integrity given the parameters of that appearently arbitrary start. I think that musicians might proceed similarly, and perhaps mathematicians as they focus on an unknown. I wonder.

But the danger of faith being applied to a problem is that it is assumed–whatever the level of competency of the faither–that their knowledge of what is morally right and true objectively is already given and their surety is equal to that of the Giver they align themselves with: Jesus or God Himself!!! And yet FS has shown how tiny bitty eeeeeny weeeny the rodinary person’s “get” of how things work is. It is entirely superficial. Entirely. It is restricted to the surface of things, those surfaces even being the claims to spiritual knowledge as formulated in precept and doctrin. It is the lowest fom of rote book learning.and most usually develops along the lines of emotion as distinct from feeliing.

And thus we have the perhaps rightful decrying of scientism, but also we have the dispensing with of critical thinking and usefullness of fact in the polarization of our Country on religious grounds where faith has a rightful and superior place about scholarly analysis and knowledge. This in what is the most critical and fundamental area of what humanity is about before it is matematical, scientific, political, or economic. So we have young Earth theory being taught as reality to great numbers of our children in public school and pages regarding the way things change regardless of their source being skipped over for fear of emotionalism from a small but unfortunately growing number of parents. And a stance on economics that is in denial of the actuality of the nature of money and is at best paranoid about it if not downright psychotic.

And so it is with this idea of “design.” It is just not plausible if one looks even a bit below the surface. It just isn’t, and due to the self identification with its argument and the emotional habituation thereto, there is the adamantine refusal to look deeper.

So as our National instiutes document that our educatioonal system and other measures reflect this Nation’s slide from first to about 20th place amongs developed countries in about as many years by many measures, we have a comensurate reliance on the more extereme manifestations of religious faith taking greater hold in the public eye. It is, imho, heading towards a religious mob mentality where reason is a greatly diminished factor, only the moralization of science and revisionism of fact will be of political use. Thus we are following the 32’/sec/sec formula into a third world condition at every level, education leading the way. And I say that from the perspective of a rather excellent Catholic school system upbringing.;

If there is "powerful evidence for “design” it is in that increasing avoidance of application of sholarly work and critical thinking to our own condition, including in the study of religion and our acquisition of it as a phenomenon. Am I attacking the Faith or religion? NO. I am advocating the use of what God gave us to see what it is that is God given and what is made up, cobbled together by proceeding from the lesser to create an Absolute in its own limited image.

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Unfortunately the probabiltiy number presented by one of our members is wildly incorrect, and completely out of date.

science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

The “RNA world” hypothesis, first promoted in 1986 in a paper in the journal Nature and defended and elaborated on for more than 25 years, posits that the first stages of molecular evolution involved RNA and not proteins, and that proteins (and DNA) emerged later, said University of Illinois crop sciences and Institute for Genomic Biology professor Gustavo Caetano-Anollés, who led the new study. “I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct,” Caetano-Anollés said. "That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins."
sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120312192839.htm

It has been repeatedly experimentally shown that the probability is nowhere near as high as some ID supporters claim.

Extrapolating from our data and from modest sequence constraints on interhelical turns (23, 28–30), we can estimate that if every position in the protein had been randomized, a library of ˜10^24 members would have been needed to obtain AroQ mutases.
pnas.org/content/98/19/10596.full#ref-30

The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10(64) signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^(77), adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

The ONLY reason to assume it represents “design” is if one can mathematically demonstrate that the probabilities involved are NOT possible from known “naturally” working/functioning/assembling/arising systems…and we KNOW what the numbers are. Asserting someting without the numbers can be very dangerous, especially in discussions with those who do not share the faith. We cannot afford to be wrong here.

It is very dangerous to argue as if there is solid evidence for a chance/accidental origin of life on earth when there isn’t even any scientific consensus on where to begin the search for a solution to that problem.

Fideism is also very dangerous – because it’s a heresy. The same is true with Deism.

I very much see the position we are left with, is the mystical Cloud of Unknowing, as we stand before Almighty God, in humble contemplative silence, not demanding a sign.

You’re arguing that there is no evidence of intelligent design in the universe – let’s be clear about that. The miracles of Our Lord, for example, are explained by natural processes alone (and are not really miracles). Purpose and rationality are explained by natural laws – and the laws themselves are explained by pure chance. There is zero evidence of the existence of God in nature or the universe. One must accept theism in Blind Faith – in Unknowing – alone.

That’s the position you’re arguing for – so far, at least.

A human interpretation of any sign is bound to shift, and change, and must not be turned into an Absolute, (or even a requirement).

That’s an important corollary – since it cannot be a requirement to put blind faith in something that has no evidence to support it, then the Catholic Faith has no binding value. Keep in mind, if there is no evidence of God “in the things He has made” as St. Paul teaches – then polytheism or even a belief in fairies or invisible pink unicorns has an equivalent level of certainty.

Finally – as a mathematician you should know that the sign: 2+2=4 is not ever bound to shift or change. It is built on what we see in reality and it remains a requirement. Moving to what is more complex, the same is true of basic logic.

Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

If you’re willing to debate the unchanging truth of that syllogism, then you really should be consistent with that point of view in your discussions. That is, you’d have to reject the principle of contradiction and ask participants here to accept that what you affirm something, it can also mean that you deny the same thing at the same time.

I don’t think you’re going to take that approach but that’s the kind of problem a radical skepticism and relativism leads to.

 

[reggieM]

We are not discussing whether there WAS an Intelligent Designer, but whether there is “natural evidence” for that.

You’re saying "No – there is zero evidence that intelligence was involved in the development of life or the universe. Everything is reducible to science alone (scientism). Everything can be explained as the product of chance, matter and natural law.

So it is not necessarily demanded of people of faith.

On the contrary – it is demanded. I already pointed it out to you that it was infallibly defined in Vatican Council I. If you’re willing to reject that teaching, then I hope you really think long and hard about it. You strike me as a believer and as one serious about the teaching of Christ. Importantly, you cannot accept the divine character of Christ without accepting also the Argument from Design. He pointed to it Himself:
“the very works that I do bear witness of me …” We observe the works – the lame can walk, the sick are healed, the blind can see. These are evidence in nature. They bear witness. Of what? Merely a good person? – no, they bear witness of the supernatural – of something that transcends nature, not reducible to a science lab. The power of God – the purpose of God – and that is His Design which is evident.

It’s apparently a matter of opinion, depending almost completely on the depth and views one has of Math and Statistics. No one here has yet to explain how the non-intuitive nature of the universe, (again … the fact that Relativity is non-intuitive, Heisenberg is not understandable to 99.5 percent of humans, and 99.99 % of humans could not even begin to explain what a Dirac Spinner was, much less write out it’s formula), leads me to think this “sign” business is a very slippery slope.

It’s because the universe is constant and predictable that we have math and science. You cannot use these rational processes to argue against the knowability of the universe. The fact that the universe corresponds in a very high degree to mathematical modelling itself is strong evidence in the Argument from Design.

Fine-tuning in the universe is real. Even atheists fully recognize it.