Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

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

It seems to me to want to have your cake and eat it!

1. Either science explains our existence or it doesn’t.
2. If science explains our existence we do not have free will.
3. Collins has tacked on free will without explaining how it originated.

BTW There is no point in making an unsupported assertion if you do not have time to justify it. There are many people who hold inconsistent beliefs!

 

[tonyrey]

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

%between%

There is also a false identification of Intelligent design and creationism which is not supported by any type of evidence, whether it be scientific, logical, theological, historical or philosophical!

 

[tonyrey]

Design is such a complex subject it is worth stating the basic facts:

1. The **sole **alternative to Design is non-Design
2. Design implies that reality is fundamentally rational
3. Either there are **reasons **why things exist or there are no reasons
4. Either there is purpose at the heart of reality or there is no purpose
5. Science does not recognise Design because it is restricted to **physical **causes
6. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality
7. Science is an **inadequate **basis for a rational existence
8. Science is based on the principle that reality is fundamentally **rational

**9. Science is based on the principle that persons are fundamentally **rational

**10. Science does not and cannot by its very nature explain how or why anything or anyone is **rational

**11. Science does not and cannot by its very nature recognise or explain **the existence of persons, **i.e. rational beings

1. Science does not and cannot by its very nature recognise or explain **free will

**(The primary meaning of “rational” is possessing the power of reason but it can also mean presupposing the power of reason)

 

[grannymh]

Design is such a complex subject it is worth stating the basic facts:

1. The **sole **alternative to Design is non-Design
2. Design implies that reality is fundamentally rational
3. Either there are **reasons **why things exist or there are no reasons
4. Either there is purpose at the heart of reality or there is no purpose
5. Science does not recognise Design because it is restricted to **physical **causes
6. Science is an inadequate explanation of reality
7. Science is an **inadequate **basis for a rational existence
8. Science is based on the principle that reality is fundamentally rational
9. Science is based on the principle that persons are fundamentally rational
10. Science does not and cannot by its very nature explain how or why anything or anyone is rational
11. Science does not and cannot by its very nature recognise or explain **the existence of persons, **i.e. rational beings
12. Science does not and cannot by its very nature recognise or explain free will

(The primary meaning of “rational” is possessing the power of reason but it can also mean presupposing the power of reason)

Science is a gift from God which helps us understand our surroundings as well as helping us understand our own blood and guts. People can use science for *both *the benefit of humanity and for the detriment of humanity.

 

[inocente]

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?
tonyrey;9043781:

You won’t find it in documents but by simply using your intelligence!
inocente;9046745:

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?
tonyrey;9047058:

no answer ]

You leave me with no possible conclusion other than Design is a cult, and as I’ve never heard of capital D Design before and it’s not to be found on the internet, I guess you must be the founding and only member.

Luck with your recruitment campaign, I’m not interested thanks.

 

[Niklasnathaniel]

Science is a gift from God which helps us understand our surroundings as well as helping us understand our own blood and guts. People can use science for *both *the benefit of humanity and for the detriment of humanity.

I agree, except for the “gift from God” thing…

As always, science and religion are looking at the same thing from different angles, both refusing to realise that they are both part right.

Ron Paul 2012
Crop circles are real
legalize gay

 

[rossum]

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

Yes, yes, yes, possibly.

Is that a fact or an opinion?

It is the basic assumption of science.

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

Science deliberately limits itself, so it cannot be an explanation for everything.

Can you state that as a syllogism?

P1 Design theory states that the designer cannot change the fundamental laws of nature.
P2 An omnipotent being can do anything.
L3 In particular an omnipotent being can change the fundamental laws of nature.
C4 The designer is not an omnipotent being.

If that were the case scientific tests would also be defective.

Scientific tests are not defective. The Michaelson-Morley experiment and Eddington’s experiment did not take infinite time.

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

How is this relevant? Does design theory explain the origin of the designer? Does Christianity explain the origin of God? All human intellectual constructions start from a set of assumptions, which are taken as axiomatic. Their origin is assumed, not explained.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Does design theory explain the origin of the designer? Does Christianity explain the origin of God? All human intellectual constructions start from a set of assumptions, which are taken as axiomatic. Their origin is assumed, not explained.

rossum

Catholicism teaches that God *is *eternally existing. No beginning or origin and no end. If that is considered an assumption, it is a dang good one.

 

[tonyrey]

Science is a gift from God which helps us understand our surroundings as well as helping us understand our own blood and guts. People can use science for *both *the benefit of humanity and for the detriment of humanity.

I entirely agree - although it is not a direct gift because like all knowledge it presupposes inspiration and our God-given power of reason.

 

[tonyrey]

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

How can the multiverse theory be verified, falsified, tested or used for any practical purposes?

Is that a fact or an opinion?

It is the basic assumption of science.

Do all scientists assume that there is a multiverse?

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

Science deliberately limits itself, so it cannot be an explanation for everything.

Do scientists have any choice in the matter, considering that they do not allow for the existence of the mind in their scientific investigations?

P1 Design theory states that the designer cannot change the fundamental laws of nature.
P2 An omnipotent being can do anything.
L3 In particular an omnipotent being can change the fundamental laws of nature.
C4 The designer is not an omnipotent being.

P1 is false. The fundamental laws of nature have not been and will not be changed because there is no reason to do so.

Scientific tests are not defective. The Michaelson-Morley experiment and Eddington’s experiment did not take infinite time.

What scientific test could establish that the laws of nature will **always **remain constant?

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

How is this relevant?

It is relevant because karma, purposeful activity and spiritual development imply the existence of persons **and **the existence of the physical world which are not obviously interdependent. In other words there are unexplained loose ends.

Does design theory explain the origin of the designer?

The Design explanation is concerned with the evidence for Design not with its origin.

Does Christianity explain the origin of God? All human intellectual constructions start from a set of assumptions, which are taken as axiomatic. Their origin is assumed, not explained

The significant difference is that theism are more adequate and economical because it postulates one Supreme Being.

 

[tonyrey]

You leave me with no possible conclusion other than Design is a cult, and as I’ve never heard of capital D Design before and it’s not to be found on the internet, I guess you must be the founding and only member.

Luck with your recruitment campaign, I’m not interested thanks.

You are merely revealing your ignorance. The term “Argument from Design” has been used by philosophers for centuries and is the title of articles and books such as that by Professor Thomas MacPherson published by MacMillan.

And on an atheist website: “Often this is referred to as the Argument from Design…”

atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/design.htm

 

[tonyrey]

Catholicism teaches that God *is *eternally existing. No beginning or origin and no end. If that is considered an assumption, it is a dang good one.

If nothing is eternal the concept of infinity must be a myth!

 

[tonyrey]

1. It is unreasonable to assume this is the only possible universe
2. It is reasonable to believe there are countless possible universes
3. Life as we know it must be very rare because the immense majority of possible universes are unlike this universe
4. Science and philosophy are based on the principle that everything has an explanation
5. It is unreasonable to believe there is no explanation for life in this universe
6. The fact that purposes are fulfilled in this universe greatly increases the probability that life in this universe has an explanation in terms of purposeful activity
7. The highest form of purposeful activity that we know is rational activity

 

[tonyrey]

As always, science and religion are looking at the same thing from different angles, both refusing to realise that they are both part right.

Welcome to the forum!

How are both science and religion part right?

 

[tonyrey]

1. The only alternative to Design is non-Design.
2. Non-Design implies that there is no reason why anything exists.
3. If there is no reason why anything exists everything is irrational, valueless, purposeless, and meaningless.
4. A rational attempt to **insert **value, purpose and meaning where they do not exist is not only futile but absurd.
5. A rational attempt to **insert **value, purpose and meaning where they do not exist presupposes the reality of value, purpose and meaning.
6. The very attempt to do so is further evidence for Design!

 

[Niklasnathaniel]

Welcome to the forum!

How are both science and religion part right?

Thank you. Well, it seems to me that science has given us the answers to a lot of questions about the universe and it’s inner workings. But at one point we see that science cannot explain something: near death experiences, encounters with light creatures (angels) people having memories of past lives, ghost experiences and so forth. That is when religion has some answers. So if these to entities worked together insted of against each other, I think we would have a much better view of the big picture.

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you. Well, it seems to me that science has given us the answers to a lot of questions about the universe and its inner workings. But at one point we see that science cannot explain something: near death experiences, encounters with light creatures (angels) people having memories of past lives, ghost experiences and so forth. That is when religion has some answers. So if these two entities worked together instead of against each other, I think we would have a much better view of the big picture.

I entirely agree with you. Neither science nor religion can lay claim to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

 

[rossum]

How can the multiverse theory be verified, falsified, tested or used for any practical purposes?

The multiverse theory makes certain statements about what our current universe is like. That enables us to test multiverse theory. Practical uses will have to wait.

Do scientists have any choice in the matter, considering that they do not allow for the existence of the mind in their scientific investigations?

Scientists are perfectly happy examining the human mind. Science has discovered many drugs to help with mental conditions such as bipolar, schizophrenia and alzheimer’s.

P1 is false. The fundamental laws of nature have not been and will not be changed because there is no reason to do so.

This is not what you said earlier. See your post #44 in this thread:

1. The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant

It is relevant because karma, purposeful activity and spiritual development imply the existence of persons **and **the existence of the physical world which are not obviously interdependent.

Your understanding of karma is faulty. Karma does not imply the presence of a material universe. Karma operates whether the universe is in a material stage or an immaterial stage. Even in a material stage, immaterial beings, such as gods, are still subject to karma.

The significant difference is that theism are more adequate and economical because it postulates one Supreme Being.

Simple theism does not. Monotheism postulates a single supreme being. Polytheism postulates a number of different powerful beings.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

I entirely agree with you. Neither science nor religion can lay claim to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

And what “whole truth” are you referring to?

Scientists properly direct their search for truth within the material/physical universe. Catholicism is the truth about God and humanity which is the whole truth needed when it comes to eternal life.

 

[grannymh]

Scientists are perfectly happy examining the human mind. Science has discovered many drugs to help with mental conditions such as bipolar, schizophrenia and alzheimer’s.

Mental conditions such as bipolar, etc., affect the physical brain and indeed scientists are responsible for many, many benefits for people who are victims of these diseases as well as other diseases affecting the rest of the human anatomy.

This proper use of science is somewhat different from current research which has tried to p(name removed by moderator)oint the location of the spiritual soul with its intellectual activity and volition. There are many cases in which researchers have observed activity within the physical brain. Benefits from knowing where specific brain activity is located include brain mapping for extremely difficult surgery.
.
In order to observe the various sections of the brain and neural system in action, there has to be some source of stimulus to initiate the activity. In the case of brain mapping, there is a bipolar electrode. Stubbing one’s toe in the dark also acts as a stimulus. A yelp of pain is a reaction common to both humans and animals and both can learn a safe path in the dark. However, humans, as a species, have immaterial rational capabilities for creative solutions like electric lights which are better than relying on one’s memory of a safe path in the dark. Especially when “someone” in the house likes to rearrange furniture.

It is true that scientists can be very happy with studying human anatomy such as the marvelous brain and neural system. However, their success stories cannot exclude the spiritual intellective powers and volition from existence.

Humans are designed to live in the material world and the spiritual world at the same time.