Powerful evidence for Design?

[rossum]

Design does not imply that life and rational existence had to exist from the moment of the Big Bang.

And here, in a nutshell, is the problem with design. Design does not imply anything, it could be that the designer designed things so that life started the moment after the Big Bang, or that life started billions of years after the Big Bang. The designer could have done either, or anything in between. Whatever time period we measure, we can always say “the designers did it that way”. There is no way to falsify design becaue it does not specify any particular time period.

Science on the other hand, requires those billions of years. Time is needed for first generation stars to condense, burn and go supernova, thus making the elements beyond iron that are found in second generation stars, and in planets like Earth. The scientific explanation is falsifiable, by measuring a short time period. The design explanation is not.

Design does not imply that life and rational existence will continue on this planet indefinitely.

So, design is not falsifiable because it makes no predictions.

Science does not explain the value, purpose or meaning of anything whatsoever.

Correct. Design does not explain the length of time before life formed after the Big Bang. There are things which one or the other cannot explain. I have already said that science gives a detailed explanation in a limited area. Design can explain anything and everything: “the IPU did it”, “Krishna did it”, “Zeus did it”. However, the design explanation is not of any real practical use.

It is absurd to compare a video game with an immensely complex universe in which there are billions of individual living organisms pursuing different purposes over a period of billions of years. Video games belong to the world of fantasy not fact.

It was not a comparison, but an illustration. I repeat that your designer cannot be omnipotent if he/she/it cannot change a design. I merely provided an illustration of a change of design.

Design explains why the laws of nature are as they are because they are essential conditions for life and rational existence.

You are assuming that the designer is rational. An irrational designer would not design a rational universe. Since the designer is already rational, then the designer cannot be an explanation for the origin of rationality. Is the designer alive? If so then design does not provide an explanation for the origin of life either.

Design does not imply that life and rational existence will continue on this planet indefinitely.

What does design imply then? Make some specific, falsifiable, predictions please.

Design is not science, because it is not falsifiable. Whatever we observe, someone can say, “the designer did it that way”. That is not science.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Design is not science, because it is not falsifiable. Whatever we observe, someone can say, “the designer did it that way”. That is not science.

rossum

I see Design everywhere in nature, in my home, with family, at night, and putting together a puzzle. Understanding Design in nature augments science; but is not science itself.

I find that I am not making the leap to an Intelligent Designer who is going to refute biological theories. I may agree with some of those biological theories which are proper in the material domain which does not mean that I rule out the spiritual domain. I have a good sense of theology so I do not need science to prove what I believe.

Understanding purpose, etc. and all the good things about Design does increase one’s knowledge; however, when I look for knowledge about the spiritual, i.e., the supernatural, I look for an institution which specializes in the spiritual domain.

Capitalizing Design helps me find it in odd places. Normally I see color first, but a capital D helps me to see the structure, purpose, and outcome when the wind is blowing sideways. In a sense, one can apply the observational tools of the scientific method to Design. One can evaluate good Design from bad Design. But for me, I simply wish to enjoy design even when I use a lower case letter.

 

[Qoeleth]

Emphasis mine.

Creation, including its design and purpose, existed before Original Sin; therefore it is not a product of Original Sin.

What is it that you are trying to say?

Its the Genesis story. The pre-Fall order of the universe was one of happiness, peace, without disease, hunger, pain ,death. Because of the Fall (original sin), the new order of the universe came to be that man is subject to death, disease, futility, eking out his living by bitter toil, and the soil yeilds drought, thistles, etc. etc. So the design of this Fallen Universe (a metaphysical peversion of the Original Creation-Paradise- to which we, banished children of Eve, no longer have access in this life) is the product of Original Sin.

 

[Qoeleth]

It is absurd to believe the entire universe is under the control of Satan.

The Apostle John’s words, not mine. “Holos Kosmos” is pretty unambiguous.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes - when one re-cognizes design it has already been cognized.

Cute and acute!

 

[tonyrey]

I see Design everywhere in nature, in my home, with family, at night, and putting together a puzzle. Understanding Design in nature augments science; but is not science itself.

I find that I am not making the leap to an Intelligent Designer who is going to refute biological theories. I may agree with some of those biological theories which are proper in the material domain which does not mean that I rule out the spiritual domain. I have a good sense of theology so I do not need science to prove what I believe.

Understanding purpose, etc. and all the good things about Design does increase one’s knowledge; however, when I look for knowledge about the spiritual, i.e., the supernatural, I look for an institution which specializes in the spiritual domain.

Capitalizing Design helps me find it in odd places. Normally I see color first, but a capital D helps me to see the structure, purpose, and outcome when the wind is blowing sideways. In a sense, one can apply the observational tools of the scientific method to Design. One can evaluate good Design from bad Design. But for me, I simply wish to enjoy design even when I use a lower case letter.

Design is used with a capital letter to indicate that it is a fundamental feature of reality - like Creation.

 

[tonyrey]

And here, in a nutshell, is the problem with design. Design does not imply anything, it could be that the designer designed things so that life started the moment after the Big Bang, or that life started billions of years after the Big Bang. The designer could have done either, or anything in between. Whatever time period we measure, we can always say “the designers did it that way”. There is no way to falsify design becaue it does not specify any particular time period.

Design specifies the time period very precisely: from the moment life became possible on this planet until the moment it becomes impossible. To reject Design on the ground that the universe could have been designed differently is absurd. The number of possibilities for the origin and continuance of life is still very restricted and an immensely minute percentage of the total number of possible universes.

Science on the other hand, requires those billions of years. Time is needed for first generation stars to condense, burn and go supernova, thus making the elements beyond iron that are found in second generation stars, and in planets like Earth. The scientific explanation is falsifiable, by measuring a short time period. The design explanation is not.

Science requires nothing! It simply describes what has occurred without explaining why it has occurred.“short” is a relative term - which is equally applicable to the time period during which life is possible.

So, design is not falsifiable because it makes no predictions.

False!

1. The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant
2. Personal activity will never be entirely explained by science
3. Persons will always be held responsible for their behaviour by rational persons unless there are mitigating circumstances
4. There will never be mitigating circumstances for all human behaviour
5. The power of reason will never be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence
6. Purposeful activity will always be considered by rational persons to be superior to purposeless activity

BTW These are principles by which all rational persons live:

“By their fruits you shall know them…”

Design does not explain the length of time before life formed after the Big Bang.

Time is irrelevant and insignificant in relation to the Design of a universe - which is not subject to parochial human notions of economy…
.

Design can explain anything and everything: “the IPU did it”, “Krishna did it”, “Zeus did it”.

Nonsensical and irrelevant.

However, the design explanation is not of any real practical use.

I have listed the predictions and principles by which all rational persons live - including Rossum…

It was not a comparison, but an illustration. I repeat that your designer cannot be omnipotent if he/she/it cannot change a design. I merely provided an illustration of a change of design.

The Design can be changed but it is not necessary to do so because it fulfils all the purposes for which the universe has been designed.

You are assuming that the designer is rational. An irrational designer would not design a rational universe. Since the designer is already rational, then the designer cannot be an explanation for the origin of rationality. Is the designer alive? If so then design does not provide an explanation for the origin of life either.

Design is not concerned with the nature of the Designer. That is a topic which is irrelevant to this thread - although I note that you assume rationality requires an explanation. Yet Buddhism is based on the belief that rationality and spiritual truths are fundamental. How else could the noble truths be recognised?

The fulfilment of so many purposes on this planet is clear evidence for the propitiousness of the laws of nature. Science does not explain the value, purpose or meaning of anything whatsoever… least of all, spiritual truths and values.

 

[tonyrey]

In the OP you promised that Design™ was the path to “exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology and - of course - philosophy. This is not to mention the happiness to be found in family life, friendship, travel and even work” . Now you’ve cut down the product description so it could just be an alien kid from another dimension playing with her Design™-a-universe game (ages 8-12). No fair.

I am quite sure there is no need to spell out all the implications of Design in every post I write… The only thing you need to be concerned about is a lack of intelligent activity!

 

[tonyrey]

It is absurd to believe the entire universe

I have already pointed out that St John’s Epistle is concerned with moral evil:

We know that whosoever is born of God **sinneth **not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness…
16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and **its desires **pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

**It is ****inordinate desires that are being condemned, the desires of a ****Godless world, i.e. the world of those who live ****as if God does not exist. The natural world has no evil desires whatsoever. Inanimate objects, plants and animals are not innocent or guilty because they are not morally responsible for what they do. They are naturally good because they are created by God. **To accuse them of being evil implies that God is evil because allows them to be controlled by Satan. Why would He possibly do that?What do you think God is doing if the entire universe is under Satan’s control?

 

[Qoeleth]

I have already pointed out that St John’s Epistle is concerned with moral evil:

                                             **It is ****inordinate desires that are being condemned, the desires of a ****Godless world, i.e. the world of those who live ****as if God does not exist. **The natural world has no evil desires whatsoever**.  **Inanimate objects, plants and animals are not innocent  or guilty because they are not morally responsible for what they do. They are naturally good because they are created by God**. **To accuse them of being evil implies that God is evil because allows them to be controlled by Satan. Why would He possibly do that?What do you think God is doing if the entire universe is under Satan's control? :confused:

Thank you for ‘pointing out’ your interpretation, but I cannot see any textual evidence to support it at all. The language of John’s Epistle “holos Kosmos” is unambiguously metaphysical. What is your basis for contending that it is merely a social idea of “those who live as if God does not exist”? Kosmos refers to a ‘universal order’, not a political or social order.

God does not ‘allow’ evil- on the contrary, He fights it. Jesus fought evil throughout His life, He fought the evils of sickness, poverty and injustice- and fought it on the Cross at Calvary. It is the same fight we are called to join in. By doing works of charity and compassion, we are going against the order of this universe, we are rebelling against the cruel and random Lord of this World, so that, to the extent that we succeed, we may say with Jesus, “now judgment is passed on this Kosmos, now the Ruler of this Kosmos is overthrown.”

 

[tonyrey]

                                               Thank you for 'pointing out' your interpretation, but I cannot see  any textual evidence to support it at all. The language of John's  Epistle "holos Kosmos" is unambiguously metaphysical. What is your basis  for contending that it is merely a social idea of "those who live as if  God does not exist"? Kosmos refers to a 'universal order', not a  political or social order.

1. Then how does “everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life…come from the world”? Surely these sins come from human beings who choose to give way to temptation.
2. Is Satan responsible for the “holos Kosmos” or “universal order”?
3. Is the world responsible for lust and pride?

By doing works of charity and compassion, we are going against the order of this universe, we are rebelling against the cruel and random Lord of this World, so that, to the extent that we succeed, we may say with Jesus, “now judgment is passed on this Kosmos, now the Ruler of this Kosmos is overthrown.”

1. Why does God give Satan such immense power over the entire universe?
2. How did Satan obtain such immense power?
3. What is God is doing while the entire universe is under Satan’s control?

 

[tonyrey]

Its the Genesis story. The pre-Fall order of the universe was one of happiness, peace, without disease, hunger, pain ,death. Because of the Fall (original sin), the new order of the universe came to be that man is subject to death, disease, futility, eking out his living by bitter toil, and the soil yeilds drought, thistles, etc. etc. So the design of this Fallen Universe (a metaphysical peversion of the Original Creation-Paradise- to which we, banished children of Eve, no longer have access in this life) is the product of Original Sin.

If you believe the entire universe has fallen as result of man’s original sin you should start another thread because it is certainly not the topic of “Powerful evidence for Design?”

 

[grannymh]

Its the Genesis story. The pre-Fall order of the universe was one of happiness, peace, without disease, hunger, pain ,death. Because of the Fall (original sin), the new order of the universe came to be that man is subject to death, disease, futility, eking out his living by bitter toil, and the soil yeilds drought, thistles, etc. etc. So the design of this Fallen Universe (a metaphysical peversion of the Original Creation-Paradise- to which we, banished children of Eve, no longer have access in this life) is the product of Original Sin.

Thank you.

Going back to your post 31, I was concerned about this sentence: “It upsets me when people suggest that this corrupt universe reflects the design of the loving God.” Emphasis mine.

What you described about the universe, before and after, is also true about human nature except for the one word “corrupt” which startled me. I believe that the way Catholicism describes current human nature as wounded, not totally corrupted, is the truth. (CCC 402 - 406)) To me, God’s universe was** wounded** in that its original harmony of human life without death was gone, but the basic design of the universe, especially its beauty and nourishment for humanity, was not totally corrupted.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for ‘pointing out’ your interpretation, but I cannot see any textual evidence to support it at all. The language of John’s Epistle “holos Kosmos” is unambiguously metaphysical. What is your basis for contending that it is merely a social idea of “those who live as if God does not exist”? Kosmos refers to a ‘universal order’, not a political or social order.

God does not ‘allow’ evil- on the contrary, He fights it. Jesus fought evil throughout His life, He fought the evils of sickness, poverty and injustice- and fought it on the Cross at Calvary. It is the same fight we are called to join in. By doing works of charity and compassion, we are going against the order of this universe, we are rebelling against the cruel and random Lord of this World, so that, to the extent that we succeed, we may say with Jesus, “now judgment is passed on this Kosmos, now the Ruler of this Kosmos is overthrown.”

Catholicism holds that there is only one Creator, i.e., one Designer of the universe. Satan can never be considered as a Lord of this World in the sense that Lord refers to God. Interestingly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 407 - 409 points out that Satan has acquired ( not created) a certain domination over man even though man remains free. This is a both-and situation. Please see CCC 377.

In order to understand the whole context regarding Adam’s nature and ours, it is best to start reading with CCC 355. Keep going. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

 

[rossum]

Design specifies the time period very precisely: from the moment life became possible on this planet until the moment it becomes impossible. To reject Design on the ground that the universe could have been designed differently is absurd. The number of possibilities for the origin and continuance of life is still very restricted and an immensely minute percentage of the total number of possible universes.

I can use science, specifically gravity, to calculate how long it would take for the disk of rubble round the proto-Sun to aggregate, under the influence of gravity, into planet Earth. I can calculate the temperature of the planet, due to the energy of the impacting pieces of rubble. I can calculate the rate of cooling of the proto-Earth. Hence I can calculate when the temperature drops low enough to allow liquid water on the surface.

How do I perform the equivalent calculations using the design model? If I use exactly the same calculations, then the design model has added nothing to our understanding, and can be rejected by Occam’s Razor. What extra utility do we get from the design model when examining the condensation of an accretion disc around a proto-star?

Science requires nothing! It simply describes what has occurred without explaining why it has occurred.“short” is a relative term - which is equally applicable to the time period during which life is possible.

My apologies for my bad phrasing. In order to be science any idea has to cover some of a number of points: repeatable, testable, falsifiable, etc. I am questioning that your design theory meets the falsifiable criterion. Can you describe something that could not have been designed, that it would be possible to find?

For example, Newton’s theory predicted that light would not be affacted by gravity while Einstein’s theory predicted that light would be affected. When it was found that light was affected by gravity, then Newton was shown to be wrong, and Einstein correct. What is the equivalent discovery that could falsify design?

1. The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant

So, your designer cannot be omnipotent if it is required to leave the laws of nature “fundamentally constant”. It also begs the question of what “fundamentally constant” means. What of other sub-universes in the multiverse that may have different laws of nature?

1. Personal activity will never be entirely explained by science

1. Persons will always be held responsible for their behaviour by rational persons unless there are mitigating circumstances

1. There will never be mitigating circumstances for all human behaviour

1. The power of reason will never be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence

1. Purposeful activity will always be considered by rational persons to be superior to purposeless activity

These are mostly outside science. 3 and 6 need rephrasing, since they fail if persons do not always exist, which they did not until a few million years ago.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Design specifies the time period very precisely: from the moment life became possible on this planet until the moment it becomes impossible. To reject Design on the ground that the universe could have been designed differently is absurd. The number of possibilities for the origin and continuance of life is still very restricted and an immensely minute percentage of the total number of possible universes.

How is this question related to the points I have made?
It is neither possible nor necessary to perform such calculations in assessing evidence for Design . Do you make any of your most important decisions in your personal relations or spiritual life according to precise calculations?

If I use exactly the same calculations, then the design model has added nothing to our understanding, and can be rejected by Occam’s Razor

.
It has added everything to our understanding - including science in its fundamental reliance on two principles: the intelligibility of the universe and the power of reason.

What extra utility do we get from the design model when examining the condensation of an accretion disc around a proto-star?

None whatsoever! Design does not claim to answer every question about reality.

Science requires nothing! It simply describes what has occurred without explaining why it has occurred.“short” is a relative term - which is equally applicable to the time period during which life is possible.

My apologies for my bad phrasing. In order to be science any idea has to cover some of a number of points: repeatable, testable, falsifiable, etc.

Those criteria can be applied to the power of reason, self-control and the constancy of the laws of nature.

I am questioning that your design theory meets the falsifiable criterion. Can you describe something that could not have been designed, that it would be possible to find?

There are countless events that are clearly not designed, such as accidents and natural disasters.

For example, Newton’s theory predicted that light would not be affacted by gravity while Einstein’s theory predicted that light would be affected. When it was found that light was affected by gravity, then Newton was shown to be wrong, and Einstein correct.

What is the equivalent discovery that could falsify design?

They are listed below.

1. The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant

So, your designer cannot be omnipotent if it is required to leave the laws of nature “fundamentally constant”.

If a machine is functioning correctly and fulfilling its basic goals there is no need to alter it. God has the power to suspend the laws of nature when necessary because no finite system can be perfect in every respect.

It also begs the question of what “fundamentally constant” means.

What of other sub-universes in the multiverse that may have different laws of nature?

If there such entities - which is debatable- they may well have their own laws which have no bearing whatsoever on the laws of this universe.

1. Personal activity will never be entirely explained by science

1. Persons will always be held responsible for their behaviour by rational persons unless there are mitigating circumstances

1. There will never be mitigating circumstances for all human behaviour

1. The power of reason will never be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence

1. Purposeful activity will always be considered by rational persons to be superior to purposeless activity

These are mostly outside science.

On the contrary. If all human activity is explained by science - beyond reasonable doubt - by science Design is falsified. Some neuroscientists believe they will eventually achieve that goal.

Even if they were outside science it does not follow that they are false, insignificant or meaningless.

3 and 6 need rephrasing, since they fail if persons do not always exist, which they did not until a few million years ago

.

The possibility that they need rephrasing implies that they are true!

 

[inocente]

Design specifies the time period very precisely: from the moment life became possible on this planet until the moment it becomes impossible.

I understood you there as saying that the big bang and everything outside life on this planet was not the product of Design. Is that what your meant me to understand?

Carbon-based life was impossible until the first stars produced it in their death. It is likely that the carbon in your left arm came from a different star to the carbon in your right arm. Science explains this and more. What is the Design™ explanation? If you use the scientific explanation for the origin of stars and the origin of carbon, why would anyone want to believe you when you depart from science later? Or if your non-science explanation is nothing more than “a designer did it”, how can that be counted better or more useful than a detailed, falsifiable scientific explanation?

 

[inocente]

I am quite sure there is no need to spell out all the implications of Design in every post I write… The only thing you need to be concerned about is a lack of intelligent activity!

It’s not the implications but the hypothesis that hasn’t been spelled out. On a science forum you would by now have been asked to state your hypothesis formally, and if you refused the thread would be stopped. With your background it should be easy enough to state your hypothesis in the style of Thomas Aquinas or whichever style you prefer. If you would do so, we could discuss the merits and you might change hearts and minds, otherwise it will just go round in circles and never get beyond the superficial. You may not want to go beyond the superficial of course, up to you.

 

[wanstronian]

Design predicts:

1. The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant
2. Personal activity will never be entirely explained by science
3. Persons will always be responsible for their behaviour unless there are mitigating circumstances
4. There will **never **be mitigating circumstances for **all **human behaviour
5. The power of reason will never be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence
6. Purposeful activity will always be considered superior to purposeless activity

For one who pretends to be so smart, you seem unaware of the illegitimacy of making predictions that we have to wait forever to validate. As others have pointed out, these cannot be considered predictions; and even if they were ultimately testable, they could still only ever be said to be compatible with the Design hypothesis, never to support it.

Your subsequent blustering attempts to try and justify this nonsense don’t aid your cause either.

There is, of course, one firm prediction made by an ID proponent, and it is this one:
William Dembski:

In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level — will be dead.

This prediction, made in Touchstone magazine in 2004, has clearly failed.

ID has been clearly and repeatedly exposed, both in the legal courts and within the skeptic community, as being “not science.” By the admission of its biggest sponsors, the Discovery Institute, it is an attempt to refresh Creationism by disguising it as science (as if this weren’t already blindingly obvious).

What’s most amusing is that ID has been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, that the only people who still take it seriously are those who just really really wish it were true. For me, this is is a delicious irony - these people who, straight-faced, claim that ID is a serious scientific proposition, merely demonstrate their lack of understanding of what science is, and in so doing, effectively debunk their own claims!

post-script: Wait! The Great Dembski has made two further predictions! One, made in the same year as the quote above, gives “Darwinism” ten years to live. Another, made two years later, repeats the 10-year claim. Ignoring the inconsistency in this nutjob’s own prophecies, we have at most only four years to wait before we can say “Yup, I thought not,” and get on with doing real science.

 

[rossum]

How is this question related to the points I have made?
It is neither possible nor necessary to perform such calculations in assessing evidence for Design . Do you make any of your most important decisions in your personal relations or spiritual life according to precise calculations?

Science says that the Sun will rise in the East. Design says that the Sun will rise in the East. Hence it is not possible to use the fact that the Sun rises in the East to tell whether science or design is correct. As with my example of Newton and Einstein, we need different and testable predictions from both sides so we can check which (if either) is correct.

So far you have failed to give any testable predictions form design that differ from the predictions of science. Even where you have given predictions, you have not derived them from design, but appear to have thought them up without any backing form design theory. My example of an accretion disk was an attempt to show how science derives its predictions from its theory, and in turn can test that theory by checking its predictions against reality.

You have stated a number of untestable predictions, but you have not derived them from any theory. You need to show your working. You should also have realised by now that many predictions limit the designer, and hence have an impact on the alleged omnipotence of the designer.

If a machine is functioning correctly and fulfilling its basic goals there is no need to alter it.

So, your designer is limited by “need”. She canot alter the machine just for teh fun of it, or to see how it would look if it was put together differently? What a boring life for your designer.

God has the power to suspend the laws of nature when necessary because no finite system can be perfect in every respect.

So, once again we are in the “design predicts anything” scenario. If God can suspend the laws of nature then there is nothing that can falsify design. The Invisible Pink Unicorn can do absolutely anything, so it is impossible to falsify her existence.

The possibility that they need rephrasing implies that they are true!

No, merely that they are untestable. “All grillamwrts are osefop,” may or may not be true, but it is currently untestable. Grillamwrts are not due to appear, in the Andromeda galaxy, for another two billion years.

rossum