Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

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

Your request is too vague to make sense and you are in the habit of ignoring my statements!

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?

If you don’t know by now there is certainly no point in attempting to explain!

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.

Detailed explanations of purposeless events - unless there is Design - which hardly enable you to find meaning and purpose in your life.

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?

Please read my posts carefully.

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”.

Do you live solely according according to scientific explanations or do you have a few purposes in life? If so where do you derive your purposes?

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.

What reasons do you have for accepting scripture? Or do you toss a coin?

I accept science as reasoned knowledge, and find it has little or nothing to do with the reasoning of Design.

What reasons do you have for accepting science as reasoned knowledge? In which aspect of science is reason located?

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?

You won’t find it in documents but by simply using your intelligence!

 

[PesnutP]

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

Bejesus, no wonder people say that arguing with a catholic is like playing chess with a pigeon. You could be the greatest player in the world, but the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, **** on the board and strut around triumphantly

 

[tonyrey]

David Hume who is widely regarded as a sceptic concluded:

“Chance has no place, on any hypothesis sceptical or religious.” - Dialogues

His main objection to belief in God was not lack of evidence for Design - which he regarded as surrounding us on every side - but the existence of evil. Yet he admitted that not all evil in the world can be prevented. He assumed it is an argument against benevolent Design because he thought it is not caused by Chance:

“Why is there any misery at all in the world? Not by chance surely.”

He was clearly mistaken because chance events play a large part in our lives. Many accidents happen inevitably in an immensely complex physical universe where there are countless moving objects. Calvin believed that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God. Non-believers like Jacques Monod attribute everything to Chance and Necessity. The truth lies between the two extremes.

There is a framework of Design within which there is a significant element of chance. There is much pointless suffering in the world but not all suffering is pointless. Pain is an essential defence mechanism for survival and also for personal development. Constant warfare is being waged between defenders and invaders in our bodies. It is also being waged between good and evil, i.e. between that which creates and that which destroys. Moral integrity leads to happiness and fulfilment whereas moral corruption destroys a person - like a rotting apple which becomes useless and poisonous.

All this hasn’t come about as a result of a series of accidents. The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian doctrine of Karma are based on the belief in cosmic justice. Ultimately we all obtain precisely what we deserve at the psychological and spiritual level. Every virtue brings its reward and every vice incurs its punishment. This is further evidence that there are reasons why we exist… and certainly not for no reason!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Correction: “…those that lead to **instant **recovery from a disease or illness are scientifically inexplicable and far more likely to be miraculous” (because they are positive events which are creative rather than destructive - and consistent with belief in Design).

 

[grannymh]

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.

Reasoning things out is the method. I was inquiring about the subject(s) of philosophy. My possible examples were being or a being or a something.

However, since I have now started reading an introduction to one of Aquinas’ early writings, I believe being, essence, existence, etc., are subject matter.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Bejesus, no wonder people say that arguing with a catholic is like playing chess with a pigeon. You could be the greatest player in the world, but the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, **** on the board and strut around triumphantly

Fyi, the quote is about arguing with “creationists”, not “Catholics.” Not all Catholics are creationists.

Regardless, grow up.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

There are scientific hypotheses galore that have not been confirmed! Yet the value of the imagination should not be underestimated… Occasionally they hit the mark - although on others they are motivated by a desire to avoid an unpalatable conclusion!

In contrast Design is constantly confirmed in thousands of ways by everyday experience and has endured for thousands of years because every rational person behaves as if there are objective purposes and **reasons **for living…

The success of science alone is powerful evidence for Design. It would hardly be due to a long series of accidents… **Reason is at the heart of reality.
**

 

[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.

Science “proves” nothing. It merely provides the best answer currently available. That answer may change in future. Just as Newton’s answer was replaced by Einstein’s answer.

For your point a) see ‘Multiverse’ theory suggested by microwave background for just one example.

For your points b) and c) see The Myth of the Beginning of Time.

We do not know everything, but we do know enough to show that the multiverse probably exists and that its laws are different to the laws of our current universe.

rossum

 

[rossum]

An unconfirmed hypothesis fails to refute anything!

A seriously considered hypothesis, which is gathering more support over time.

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

I read it. Are you denying the possibility of the designer performing miracles then? Yes or no please.

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

All space, time, mass and energy (STEM) in the universe is explicable. If there is something that is not STEM then science may not be able to explain it. Science deliberately limits itself to STEM only.

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

Therefore Design has no place in science classes, but should be taught in philosophy classes.

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

The assumption is that at least a part of human activity is scientifically explicable.

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

Yes. Science does not explain karma, gandhabbas and various other religious phenomena.

There are no rational arguments to counter.

There were two perfectly rational arguments. 1) Your designer cannot be omnipotent as you describe her. 2) Many of your proposed tests require infinite time, those “always” and “never”.

So you agree that physicalism is false?

Yes. I am Buddhist, not materialist.

rossum

 

[wanstronian]

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

Not unaware, it’s just that they’ve been dealt with by other posters. Your predictions are not unique to ID. Their truth or falsity does not distinguish ID from not-ID. So they’re irrelevant.

Design <> ID.

Well I hadn’t realised you were arguing for some new hypothesis. Can you outline its key points?

BTW I continue to delete all your extraneous, irrelevant and discourteous remarks to which you are so clearly addicted.

Nice ploy - where I challenge you to back up a claim, you can call it extraneous or irrelevant and ignore it! How convenient for you!

It would be far more to the point to attempt to refute the points I have listed

Where your points are refutable, I’ve refuted them. Where they’re not refutable, it’s because they are untestable. I could just as easily say that the most adequate explanation for the universe is that it was built by pixies on a wet Wednesday afternoon. You can’t refute that point because no matter how hard you try, I’ll invent some new arbitrary clause that puts my hypothesis beyond refutation.

This is what you consistently fail to grasp - inventing stuff and calling it true doesn’t make it true. You have to be able to substantiate your claims. You have never once been able to do so.

You don’t seem to have realised that you don’t automatically win an argument by doggedly repeating the same old tripe until your opponent realises that he’s talking to an imbecile and gives up. On the evidence so far, you never will.

 

[inocente]

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…

Enough said, I’ll back off a bit.

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…

We want to know the reason for accidents, how to mitigate their effects, and how to prevent them. The best method we’ve found is science, and one reason it that science doesn’t get bogged down with questions such as whether God is happy with us trying to prevent events that He may have willed.

Design either does the same, in which case it is indistinguishable from science, or different, in which case it is less effective at keeping dads alive to go home to their daughters.

 

[inocente]

Your request is too vague to make sense and you are in the habit of ignoring my statements!

Asking you to state that design applies to a, b and c, and does not apply to x, y and z is asking if it applies to diphtheria and diseases in general, to stars and inanimate objects in general, and so on. Hardly a request "too vague to make sense”.

If you don’t know by now there is certainly no point in attempting to explain!

Now we’re getting somewhere, Design cannot explain stars. Fine, it doesn’t need to be all singing all dancing.

*Detailed explanations of purposeless events - unless there is Design - which hardly enable you to find meaning and purpose in your life. *

That’s not true for an atheist, and I know as I was that atheist. OK, so Design is only aimed at those who believe that meaning is contained in some manner of mystic otherness. We’re cooking on gas.

Please read my posts carefully.

I’d already gathered that Design doesn’t do detailed explanations.

Do you live solely according according to scientific explanations or do you have a few purposes in life? If so where do you derive your purposes?

I get them from all over the shop. I’ll let you know whether they include Design when I’ve figured out what it is.

What reasons do you have for accepting scripture? Or do you toss a coin?

The Spirit of course.

What reasons do you have for accepting science as reasoned knowledge? In which aspect of science is reason located?

It works. Did Design rid the world of smallpox? Did it even invent a computer?

You won’t find it in documents but by simply using your intelligence!

Design isn’t to be found in scripture or any Catholic writings? Really? New Age books offer a similar line to “you won’t find it in documents”, how is Design any different?

 

[inocente]

Reasoning things out is the method. I was inquiring about the subject(s) of philosophy. My possible examples were being or a being or a something.

However, since I have now started reading an introduction to one of Aquinas’ early writings, I believe being, essence, existence, etc., are subject matter.

Imho there are more profound and useful questions, for instance, “do slaves have personhood?” since reasoning about that gets to the heart of what a person is and is not, and from there the morality of slavery and of shading personhood at all (are women inferior to men, should children have fewer rights than adults, etc.)

Whereas worrying over the lightness of being and the essence of existence sounds as if it might well end up in fighting about how many angels can fit on a pin, which I believe happened and is a warning.

 

[tonyrey]

An unconfirmed hypothesis fails to refute anything!

Can it be verified, falsified, tested or used for any practical purposes?

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

I read it. Are you denying the possibility of the designer performing miracles then? Yes or no please.

Why should I? You have obviously misinterpreted my statements.

Scientific research is based on the assumption - and conducted according to the principle -that **all **

activity in the universe is scientifically explicable. All space, time, mass and energy (STEM) in the universe is explicable.

Is that a fact or an opinion?

If there is something that is not STEM then science may not be able to explain it. Science deliberately limits itself to STEM only.

Science has no option!

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

Therefore Design has no place in science classes, but should be taught in philosophy classes.

Non sequitur. Science is based on philosophical principles. If you fail to mention the limitations of science you are failing to give students a balanced view of reality.

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

The assumption is that at least a part of human activity is scientifically explicable.

The most significant part of human activity -as we realise when individuals go out of their mind…

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

Yes. Science does not explain karma, gandhabbas and various other religious phenomena.

There are no rational arguments to counter.

There were two perfectly rational arguments. 1) Your designer cannot be omnipotent as you describe her.

Can you state that as a syllogism?

1. Many of your proposed tests require infinite time, those “always” and “never”.

If that were the case scientific tests would also be defective. You seem to have two standards of evidence.

So you agree that physicalism is false?

Yes. I am Buddhist, not materialist.

Does Buddhism explain the origin of karma, purposeful activity and spiritual development?

 

[tonyrey]

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

Such as?

Your predictions are not unique to ID. Their truth or falsity does not distinguish ID from not-ID.

Please prove that assertion.

Design <> ID.

Well I hadn’t realised you were arguing for some new hypothesis. Can you outline its key points?

I have already explained that Design is a philosophical explanation whereas ID is restricted to the scope of science.

Where your points are refutable, I’ve refuted them. Where they’re not refutable, it’s because they are untestable. I could just as easily say that the most adequate explanation for the universe is that it was built by pixies on a wet Wednesday afternoon. You can’t refute that point because no matter how hard you try, I’ll invent some new arbitrary clause that puts my hypothesis beyond refutation.

All these statements are unsubstantiated and do nothing to further the discussion. In fact your post contains nothing positive…

 

[tonyrey]

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…

I wonder why? Could it be because your First Law of Design is untenable? That it is a distortion of Design to state:

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.

?

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…

*. *
We want to know the reason for accidents, how to mitigate their effects, and how to prevent them. The best method we’ve found is science, and one reason it that science doesn’t get bogged down with questions such as whether God is happy with us trying to prevent events that He may have willed.

Science is completely out of its depth when the issue is **why **and how we should behave towards God or anyone else…

Design either does the same, in which case it is indistinguishable from science, or different, in which case it is less effective at keeping dads alive to go home to their daughters.

The difference is that Design entails free will whereas science doesn’t even recognise it and - if scientists are permitted to exceed their brief - regards free will as an illusion!

 

[tonyrey]

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

Researchers in Cambridge have deciphered the genetic code of the gorilla - the last of the Great Ape genuses to be sequenced.
Writing in the journal Nature, the scientists say that researchers can now begin to examine the similarities and differences between the apes.
Genome sequences of humans, chimpanzees and orangutans are already published.
The team hopes their work will help to uncover genetic mutations that led to language, culture and science.
“I’d like to think that in the next 20 or 30 years we will get a deeper understanding of what happened genetically in our evolutionary history, and of how those genes affect the brain and other properties that make us modern humans,” said Richard Durbin of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, who led the study.

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17239059

This is a typical view held by many scientists.

Comparative studies will also shed more light on the evolution of all the Great Apes; but the key question is whether the bounty of genetic information contains clues to the moment when the first genes emerged that made humans capable of abstract thought. “This is the question we are all fascinated by,” Dr Durbin told BBC News.

Of especial interest to AI scientists!

It is unlikely that a single development led to our species’ advance towards modernity, or that all developments along that path were genetic.
Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) emerged around 200,000 years ago, but it was not until about 50,000 years ago that **our bigger brains **began to make a difference.

NB No mention of the mind…

Until then, humanity was one among small number of apes in Africa, probably living not very differently from gorillas.
So, something happened very rapidly around that time that led to the emergence of abstract thought, allowing humans to invent advanced tools and use them to shape the environment.
“There will have been genetic factors,” said Dr Durbin, “but also cultural and historic factors.”

NB Only** natural **factors!

The availability of the genomes of all the Great Apes will help scientists answer what happened over the past 200,000 years to enable our species become what we are now.

This opinion is widespread and it is the principle by which research is conducted. Design predicts that science will never entirely explain how we have become what we are now.

BTW This is just the evidence I need to support my claim that Design is falsifiable and makes predictions. I’m sure there will be much more to come.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Hi Tonyrey, you made these two statements on the previous page:

Science is based on philosophical principles.

I have already explained that Design is a philosophical explanation whereas ID is restricted to the scope of science.

ID (Intelligent Design) isn’t science and science isn’t philosophy. And if you rummage through some of my postings on previous topics I have made it very clear that I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design.

The difference is that Design entails free will whereas science doesn’t even recognise it and - if scientists are permitted to exceed their brief - regards free will as an illusion!

I’m a scientist and agree with this statement by Human Genome Project - Genomic Science Program:ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/courts/courts.shtml Here is an excerpt from it:

Judicial education was an important component of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Human Genome Program’s Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Program. The potential legal implications of the HGP are vast and information gleaned from the project is sure to be increasingly offered as courtroom evidence.

Discrimination cases based on the dissemination of genetic testing information to official or private entities will become commonplace. Motions for injunctive relief will be filed based on irreparable harm to general health, life, or the species posed by gene therapy and other biotechnology regimes. There will be judicial review of the administrative regulation of genetic testing methods and genetic counseling services. We can even expect claims challenging the validity of individual responsibility based on free-will considerations in light of the discovery of genetic traits that, it will be claimed, predispose certain individuals to violence or antisocial, thrill-seeking behavior.

My answer is NO to your question "Powerful evidence for Design?" My concern is it results in OCD ( obsessive compulsive disorder) with some people. That is not a healthy life style as far as I am concerned.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Science is based on

I haven’t made either of those claims.

And if you rummage through some of my postings on previous topics I have made it very clear that I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design.

You are entitled to your opinion.

          *The difference is that Design entails  free will whereas science doesn't even recognise it and - if scientists  are permitted to exceed their brief - regards free will as an illusion!*

I’m a scientist and agree with this statement by Human Genome Project - Genomic Science Program:ornl.gov/sci/techresource…s/courts.shtml

Here is an excerpt from it:

 Quote:
                                             Judicial education was an important component of the U.S. Department  of Energy's Human Genome Program's Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues  Program. The potential legal implications of the HGP are vast and  information gleaned from the project is sure to be increasingly offered  as courtroom evidence.

Discrimination cases based on the dissemination of genetic testing information to official or private entities will become commonplace. Motions for injunctive relief will be filed based on irreparable harm to general health, life, or the species posed by gene therapy and other biotechnology regimes. There will be judicial review of the administrative regulation of genetic testing methods and genetic counseling services. We can even expect claims challenging the validity of individual responsibility based on free-will considerations in light of the discovery of genetic traits that, it will be claimed, predispose certain individuals to violence or antisocial, thrill-seeking behavior.
My answer is NO to your question "Powerful evidence for Design?" My concern is it results in OCD ( obsessive compulsive disorder) with some people. That is not a healthy life style as far as I am concerned.

That is an argumentum ad hominem. The fact that some people who believe in Design develop OCD has no bearing on the truth of the Design explanation.

1. Do you regard free will as an illusion?
2. If so how do you reconcile that belief with Catholic teaching?
3. If not how does free will fit into the Human Genome Project?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Tonyrey, I don’t have the time to argue with you. I noticed a previous topic you started “Evidence for design” (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=631306) that has now been closed. Let me make it clear to you I disagree with you on this topic and on that topic. This will be my last comments on this topic.

I do support the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. From it’s website it plainly states, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” On that website it also states, “Intelligent design” creationism is not supported by scientific evidence."
nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

Last but not least, free will was discussed in a 2009 interview with scientist Francis Collins and John Horgan. I agree with Francis Collins.

Quote:
Horgan: Free will is a very important concept to me, as it is to you. It’s the basis for our morality and search for meaning. Don’t you worry that science in general and genetics in particular—and your work as head of the Genome Project—are undermining belief in free will?

Collins: You’re talking about genetic determinism, which implies that we are helpless marionettes being controlled by strings made of double helices. That is so far away from what we know scientifically! Heredity does have an influence not only over medical risks but also over certain behaviors and personality traits. But look at identical twins, who have exactly the same DNA but often don’t behave alike or think alike. They show the importance of learning and experience—and free will. I think we all, whether we are religious or not, recognize that free will is a reality. There are some fringe elements that say, “No, it’s all an illusion, we’re just pawns in some computer model.” But I don’t think that carries you very far.
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0702/voices.html