Powerful evidence for Design?

[wanstronian]

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”.

God has the power to suspend the laws of nature when necessary

So let me get this straight. You’re saying that Design “theory” makes predictions that hold true unless God decides for some arbitrary reason that on a few occasions they shouldn’t.

And you think this is a robust defence of ID as a scientific proposition? Tell me, how would one go about setting falsification criteria for this particular prediction? How would one distinguish falsification from “God did it?”

 

[tonyrey]

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?

No!

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?

It does not imply that science explains everything.…

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?

I have already explained how Design is not only falsifiable but detailed in all the ways I have listed.

 

[tonyrey]

…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.

You seem unaware that I have listed some of the principles and implicit predictions in the way every** rational **person lives.

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

Design <> ID.

BTW I continue to delete all your extraneous, irrelevant and discourteous remarks to which you are so clearly addicted. It would be far more to the point to attempt to refute the points I have listed

 

[tonyrey]

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.

False!

Design: 1. The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant
Science: The laws of nature will **probably **remain fundamentally constant

Design: 2. Personal activity will never be entirely explained by science
Science: Personal activity will probably be entirely explained by science

Design: 3. Persons will always be held responsible for their behaviour by rational persons unless there are mitigating circumstances
Science: Out of its depth!

Design: 4. There will never be mitigating circumstances for all human behaviour
Science: Out of its depth!

Design: 5. The power of reason will never be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence
Science: The power of reason will probably be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence

Design: 6. Purposeful activity will always be considered by rational persons to be superior to purposeless activity
Science: Out of its depth!

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.

False! The predictions are based on the evidence for Design that we are rational, purposeful beings and that the universe is intelligible.

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.
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.
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.

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.

False, provocative remarks which are ignored with the contempt they deserve…

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?

No response!

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. **

No response!

 

[tonyrey]

God has the power to suspend the laws of nature when necessary

The justification of belief in miracles is a topic for another thread but the present issue is evidence for Design.

The suspension of the laws of nature is unnecessary as far as Design is concerned because it does not entail discussion of the origin of Design or the nature of the Designer - which is yet another topic…

 

[inocente]

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?
tonyrey;9038271:

No!

If I didn’t understand then other readers may not have either, so perhaps you can help us by explaining what you actually meant. You could just make a scoping statement, as in “Design applies to a, b and c, and does not apply to x, y and z”.

It does not imply that science explains everything..

Agreed, but I’ll ask my question again so you can answer and not get accused of prevaricating: 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?

You can just point out the differences if it’s easier.

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?
tonyrey;9038271:

I have already explained how Design is not only falsifiable but detailed in all the ways I have listed.

Estupendo, then you can easily link a falsifiable example of a detailed Design explanation. This will let us compare the detailed Design and scientific explanations to discover how the Design explanation is better or more useful, which you apparently didn’t notice was the whole point of my question.

 

[tonyrey]

If I didn’t understand then other readers may not have either, so perhaps you can help us by explaining what you actually meant. You could just make a scoping statement, as in “Design applies to a, b and c, and does not apply to x, y and z”.

 

[grannymh]

Dumb questions.


Seems to me, from all these threads, that Design explains being or a being or a something.

1. Isn’t that philosophy?
2. Does philosophy use objective reasoning?
3. Does philosophy require scientific predictions?
4. What does people being upset with other people over what is science and what is not science have to do with a rational approach to a Creator? Or a philosophical approach to a Creator?

 

[tonyrey]

Dumb questions.


Seems to me, from all these threads, that Design explains being or a being or a something.

1. Isn’t that philosophy?

Yes!

1. Does philosophy use objective reasoning?

Yes!

1. Does philosophy require scientific predictions?

No!

1. What does people being upset with other people over what is science and what is not science have to do with a rational approach to a Creatoru? Or a philosophical approach to a Creator?

Nothing!

Pertinent questions - unlike some impertinent ones that have been posed.

 

[grannymh]

Yes!

Yes!

No!

Nothing!

Pertinent questions - unlike some impertinent ones that have been posed.

My reasoning is that the questions in post 65
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9039333&postcount=65

pertain to philosophical reasoning which can demonstrate the existence of a Creator
without using the scientific method. Therefore, I do not understand why prediction and falsifiable are considered.

 

[tonyrey]

My reasoning is that the questions in post 65
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9039333&postcount=65

pertain to philosophical reasoning which can demonstrate the existence of a Creator
without using the scientific method. Therefore, I do not understand why prediction and falsifiable are considered.

They are not essential but they are further criteria by which the cogency of a philosophical explanation is enhanced.

It is highly significant that we live** as if** there is Design regardless of what we profess to believe - and not **as if **we exist for no reason or purpose…

 

[rossum]

Design: 1. The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant
Science: The laws of nature will **probably **remain fundamentally constant

Then design has failed. The laws of nature were different in the underlying multiverse before the Big Bang to what they are now. Design fails.

You also have to bear in mind Wanstronian’s point about this making the designer unable to temporarily suspend the laws of nature.

Design: 2. Personal activity will never be entirely explained by science
Science: Personal activity will probably be entirely explained by science

Where does science say that? I would accept a “may”, but I have seen no statement that the probability exceeds 50% (your “probably”).

Design: 3. Persons will always be held responsible for their behaviour by rational persons unless there are mitigating circumstances
Science: Out of its depth!

Design: 4. There will never be mitigating circumstances for all human behaviour
Science: Out of its depth!

Agreed. I have already said that these two are outside science.

Design: 5. The power of reason will never be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence
Science: The power of reason will probably be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence

Where does science say that? I would accept a “may”, but I have seen no statement that the probability exceeds 50% (your “probably”).

Design: 6. Purposeful activity will always be considered by rational persons to be superior to purposeless activity
Science: Out of its depth!

Agreed. I have already said that this is outside science.

False, provocative remarks which are ignored with the contempt they deserve…

Your inability to counter my arguments is noted.

No response!

I have already agreed that science does not cover moral issues. They are outside the boundaries of science. I see no need to repeat myself.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Not only is the fundamental constancy of the laws of nature evidence for Design, the frequent suspension of those laws is further evidence for **benevolent **Design. There have been many cases of scientifically inexplicable cases of survival and miraculous cures throughout history and throughout the world.

There have also been many cases of freak accidents causing disability and death but they are not evidence for the lack of Design even though they are caused by the laws of nature. Misfortunes are inevitable even in a perfectly designed universe. They are due to **coincidences **resulting from conjunctions of events occurring according to the laws of nature. There is no reason why people happen to be in the “wrong” place at the “wrong” time. If a person is killed by in an earthquake it is entirely due to Chance. There is a reason why the earthquake occurs and a reason why the person is in that locality but there is no reason why those events converge in time and space. Within the framework of Design there is an element of Chance!

It is therefore an indisputable fact that physical evil is an inevitable feature of physical reality. We cannot have everything for nothing. There is always some price to pay - and the more we have the more we stand to lose…

PS Of course some accidents are “strokes of good luck” - like winning the lottery - but if those that lead to **instant **recovery from a disease or illness they are scientifically inexplicable and far more likely to be miraculous.

 

[inocente]

I stated:

1. Design specifies the time period very precisely: from the moment life became possible on this planet until the moment it becomes impossible.
2. It does not follow that Design applies **solely **to life and/or rational beings on other planets.

Third strike next time bro, when I may have to conclude that either you don’t know or are not prepared to say. It’s very simple - what is the scope of Design, as in “Design applies to a, b and c, and does not apply to x, y and z”?

Agreed, but I’ll ask my question again so you can answer and not get accused of prevaricating: 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?
tonyrey;9038796:

Design explains that the existence of life and rational beings in the universe is due to purposeful, rational activity and not due to purposeless processes.

All well and good, understood, but you could reply to any number of questions with that very same mission statement, while your rival natural science gives detailed specific explanations. So, again, what actually is the Design explanation? For instance, “stars are designed such that in their death they produce the carbon needed for life” - would that be a summary of the Design explanation?

I have done so in my reply to Rossum:

Also coming up for third strike. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to reread what you posted earlier on the thread, but as I said, the whole point of my question was for you to “link a falsifiable example of a detailed Design explanation” with the stated objective of comparing “the detailed Design and scientific explanations to discover how the Design explanation is better or more useful”.

Hmmm. Perhaps another tack. I’ll state my objective up front – I accept scripture as revelation, and find it has little or nothing to do with the reasoning of Design. I accept science as reasoned knowledge, and find it has little or nothing to do with the reasoning of Design. So I am on a mission to pin down exactly what Design actually states. To learn everything I can about Design:

A. Will I find it in the CCC and by going on an RCIA?
B. If not, what other Church documents should I read?
C. If A and B won’t provide all the information I need, what non-Church documents should I read?

 

[inocente]

Dumb questions.


Seems to me, from all these threads, that Design explains being or a being or a something.

1. Isn’t that philosophy?

No. Philosophy is reasoning things out, and is difficult and challenging. Design on the other hand appears to be about picking comforting conclusions and then back-filling with any good sound bites that come to hand.

2. Does philosophy use objective reasoning?

Philosophy is reasoning.

3. Does philosophy require scientific predictions?

Profession philosophers use all the information available, it would be a bit weird not to, since their objective is to reason as well as possible.

4. What does people being upset with other people over what is science and what is not science have to do with a rational approach to a Creator? Or a philosophical approach to a Creator?

Ersatz pseudo-filosifie gives apologetics a bad name.

It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness. - Joseph Ratzinger, philvaz.com/apologetics/p81.htm

 

[prodigalson2011]

Then design has failed. The laws of nature were different in the underlying multiverse before the Big Bang to what they are now. Design fails.

…

rossum

I was unaware that science had proven a) the existence of a multiverse b) the laws that governed it c) that it is necessarily older than our universe.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure it’s because science has done no such thing.

 

[inocente]

Not only is the fundamental constancy of the laws of nature evidence for Design, the frequent suspension of those laws is further evidence for **benevolent **Design. There have been many cases of scientifically inexplicable cases of survival and miraculous cures throughout history and throughout the world.

There have also been many cases of freak accidents causing disability and death but they are not evidence for the lack of Design even though they are caused by the laws of nature. Misfortunes are inevitable even in a perfectly designed universe. They are due to **coincidences **resulting from conjunctions of events occurring according to the laws of nature. There is no reason why people happen to be in the “wrong” place at the “wrong” time. If a person is killed by in an earthquake it is entirely due to Chance. There is a reason why the earthquake occurs and a reason why the person is in that locality but there is no reason why those events converge in time and space. Within the framework of Design there is an element of Chance!

From which we draw the First Law of Design which states: Events we like are the result of Design, events we dislike are the result of Non-design, events we’re not sure about are the result of Chance.

:newidea:
Ooooooooh, I get the capital letters now – of course, they’re the Greek gods. Tyche is Chance, freak accidents are the work of Poseidon, but who is Design – Techne? Athena? Zeus himself? How very interesting. I never understood why they had so many gods in their polytheism, but yes, I see now how once they started down the road of personification, it was inevitable. We learn something every day.

 

[tonyrey]

Design: 1. The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant
Science: The laws of nature will probably remain fundamentally constant

An unconfirmed hypothesis fails to refute anything!

You also have to bear in mind Wanstronian’s point about this making the designer unable to temporarily suspend the laws of nature.

I have discussed that issue in post #70 of this thread.

Design: 2. Personal activity will never be entirely explained by science
Science: Personal activity will probably be entirely explained by science

Where does science say that? I would accept a “may”, but I have seen no statement that the probability exceeds 50% (your “probably”).

Scientific research is based on the assumption - and conducted according to the principle -that **all **activity in the universe is scientifically explicable.

Design: 3. Persons will always be held responsible for their behaviour by rational persons unless there are mitigating circumstances
Science: Out of its depth!

Design: 4. There will never be mitigating circumstances for all human behaviour
Science: Out of its depth!

Agreed. I have already said that these two are outside science.

Therefore it is absurd to use science to attempt to refute Design - which is a philosophical explanation.

Design: 5. The power of reason will never be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence
Science: The power of reason will probably be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence

Where does science say that? I would accept a “may”, but I have seen no statement that the probability exceeds 50% (your “probably”).

Neuroscience and AI science are based on the assumption - and conducted according to the principle - that all human activity is scientifically explicable.

Design: 6. Purposeful activity will always be considered by rational persons to be superior to purposeless activity
Science: Out of its depth!

Agreed. I have already said that this is outside science.

So you agree that science is an inadequate explanation of persons and reality as a whole?

False, provocative remarks which are ignored with the contempt they deserve…

Your inability to counter my arguments is noted.

There are no rational arguments to counter.

I have already agreed that science does not cover moral issues. They are outside the boundaries of science.

So you agree that physicalism is false?

 

[tonyrey]

The great religions of the world including Buddhism imply that there is Design because moral values and spiritual development would hardly occur in an irrational and purposeless universe!

 

[tonyrey]

From which we draw the First Law of Design which states: Events we like are the result of Design, events we dislike are the result of Non-design, events we’re not sure about are the result of Chance.

There is an element of truth in your statement. I’m sure you don’t normally go out of your way to be extremely unpleasant and make people dislike you intensely. So it’s hardly likely that the purpose of Design is to make persons as hateful and life as detestable as possible…

Chance is related to uncertainty. I don’t suppose for one moment that you are capable of predicting precisely when and where accidents are going to occur - although if you studied black spots for a few years you may possibly become more expert than most at making approximate forecasts… However I’m prepared to bet you will never identify the unfortunate victims in advance - unless you are determined to win the bet, by any means fair or foul…