Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[stoplooklisten]

Evolution has repeatedly been observed to unintelligently develop resistance to pesticides, antibiotics etc.

The development of resistance could already be pre-programmed in the genetic code (by an intelligent designer), Evolution has no mechanism for the intelligent ordering of genetic code.

Mutations have no intelligence. Death by natural selection has no creative capabilities.

And, given that intelligent designs appear regularly in nature, do we not owe a response to the Creator/Designer in the forms that include humility, thanksgiving, honor, praise? Does not the existence of natural law require repentance, obedience? Does not resistance to attributing design to a designer, indicate resistance to following through with moral obligations to responds to the Creator/Desgner with humility and thanksgiving?

 

[rossum]

Actually, burden of proof belongs to design without cause, Where are the observations of an unintelligent cause of a intelligent effect?

In science the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Some science does deal with intelligent design: forensic science and archaeology for instance. In both those cases the evidence for the existence of the designers is obvious. You have to show that your proposed intelligent designer(s) exist

Then ask what caused the intelligent designer to exist? Was that cause itself intelligent? If so then that is the first step of a potential infinite regress. At some point there has to be an intelligent designer that was not intelligently designed in order to prevent an infinite regress. Hence there is evidence of an intelligent designer without an intelligent cause. Your assumption is incorrect.

Could it not be that apparent evolution is the result of pre-programmed genetic code being expressed in later generations?

So, where is the ID research showing all the possible pre-programmed code in, say, a flu virus, hence making it possible to manufacture a universal flu vaccine that does not have to be changed every year or two?

I have seen this claim before, but it has never been shown true by experiment. If true it would greatly improve the design of antibiotics, vaccines, herbicides etc. Nothing of the sort has ever been shown experimentally. In science, you are expected to back up your hypotheses with experiments. Unsupported hypotheses are a dime a dozen in science.

Evolution has no mechanism for the intelligent ordering of genetic code.

Of course not, since evolution is an unintelligent process. It runs massively in parallel and eliminates the less successful variants. That orders genetic code in ways that are more successful in a given environment. White fur in the Arctic for instance.

Mutations have no intelligence. Death by natural selection has no creative capabilities.

Mutations are creative, they introduce random variations into the population DNA. Natural selection weeds out the less successful variants, though it does not in general do so by death. A mere failure to reproduce, or reproducing less than average, is sufficient.

And, given that intelligent designs appear regularly in nature, do we not owe a response to the Creator/Designer in the forms that include humility, thanksgiving, honor, praise?

How many people did smallpox kill? The Black Death? Not worthy of praise in my book. “You shall not kill” is a good rule. Smallpox and the plague both broke that rule. Why should I praise a rulebreaker?

 

[o_mlly]

You’ve really lost me here. It was you who claimed that evidence for your proposal that ““Information organized” in an effect is evidence of an intelligent cause” could be found by examining “other effects that contain organized information”.

I misunderstood your question thinking it was simply another dodge to avoid answering my question. So, to answer your question: every post in this thread contains coded symbols organized in specified patterns to convey intelligent ideas. (Some more intelligent than others.) These effects emanate from intelligent causes.

I emanated from a zygote which certainly wasn’t.

No, that example does not pass muster. You are that zygote and you have posted in this thread: intelligent effect from an intelligent cause.

Please try again.

Why are you shifting the goalposts here?

Why are you repeating to dodge the simple question? Every living cell observed contains specified digital information. We call digital organized information “intelligence”. The proposition is that all intelligent effects require an intelligent cause. This proposition (two universals embedded) is easily falsifiable with just one example to the contrary. So again I ask, what repeatable intelligent effect do you offer that emanates from an unintelligent cause?

 

[o_mlly]

Information is organized by temperature and barometric pressure, unintelligent causes. It allows meteorologists to try to predict the weather, which is usually an example of an intelligent cause producing disorganized information.

No, the information is organized by the meteorologist. The prediction, an intelligent effect, emanates from an intelligent cause, the meteorologist.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

These effects emanate from intelligent causes.

So they do. I don’t think anybody denies that intelligent beings can produce organised information. The question is whether non-intelligent beings can. Evidence for the first does not preclude the second. First you demanded that I give you an example of some, and then you announced that there wasn’t any. This is all rather confused.

I’m having a rethink, and supposing that what you are claiming is that it is not possible for organised information to emerge from non-intelligent sources. As humans are intelligent, then they could not have derived from non-intelligent sources, and God is the name you give to the intelligent source that they, therefore, derived from.

You don’t seem to have any evidence that “it is not possible for organised information to emerge from non-intelligent sources” except by looking for examples of some. Or rather, since your belief is clearly a matter of faith rather than evidence, demanding that I find something you believe to be non-existent. If I can’t, then you feel your argument is strengthened.

You are that zygote

But when I did give you exactly the example you thought I couldn’t, you seem to have responded by redefining intelligence, not to mention zygote. In what sense is a single fertilised cell intelligent? After reading that I realised I needed to understand your definition of intelligence a bit more clearly than I did.

We call digital organized information “intelligence”.

And then I found out. I have to say that when you say “we” call “digital organised information” intelligence, I can’t include myself among the “we”. Intelligence, to me, is a kind of competence, not merely a list. I do not call a book or a DVD an example of “intelligence”, even though they are both examples of “digital organised information”.

But never mind. Let’s take the zygote of a sea-slug. You will agree, of course, that it is an example “digital organised information”, and so, by your definition, it is intelligent. But then, any strand of DNA is “digital organised information” and therefore intelligent. Every single living cell is intelligent - is that your argument?

I’ll happily pursue this further but would not want to go off the rails of this discussion, so I’ll just check if I’m right so far. Is that OK?

 

[EndTimes]

Why are you repeating to dodge the simple question? Every living cell observed contains specified digital information.

Yes… Anyone claiming to speak for Bio-Sciences - who present the term “creartionist” and plays the “moving the goalposts” gambit - should be ignored

All Cells contain encoded specified functional Biological Information…

To fully appreciate that statement - requires a smidgeon of Information theory.

Even Bill Gates averred that - the level of Bio-Info in a Cell-

• is “far far advanced” than any computer programming thus in existence…

Before one jumps to Intelligence - which can infer God - which can infuriate some atheist-wannabes,
one too - must first think about - the Origin of said Information.

_

 

[stoplooklisten]

In science the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Some science does deal with intelligent design: forensic science and archaeology for instance. In both those cases the evidence for the existence of the designers is obvious. You have to show that your proposed intelligent designer(s) exist

Then ask what caused the intelligent designer to exist? Was that cause itself intelligent? If so then that is the first step of a potential infinite regress.

Hence there is evidence of an intelligent designer without an intelligent cause. Your assumption is incorrect.

You are on a Catholic forum. The Catholic church is larger and older than any association of scientists. The burden of proof here is on the atheists and doubters for the underlying assertions here are those of the Catholic Church and faith. But, you can set that aside for now and consider nature. It’s older than any of us. The earth and the universe are here. We humans are here. We enjoy a certain range of freedom and abilities. For now at least, our generation is passing through with life and breath and much more. We are one in a long series of human generations. Reasonable questions are: Where did we come from? Where are we going? Who do we thank for what we have?

It’s not really our business to speculate infinitely into the past. We are here. The moment is now. What are we going to do about it? We can’t prove what happened in the past? We certainly can’t prove what will happen in the future but we can ponder it. Was there a Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Will there be a resurrection for each one of us? Will there be a judgment? Will there be eternal existence for humanity? Will there be two places of eternal destiny? Will there be degrees of rewards and punishments in those two places? Has an Almighty God revealed Himself in natural revelation, in supernatural revelation? Is our reasoning good enough? Are we missing something in our thought and reasoning? These are reasonable questions that we would be morally amiss to ignore.

At some point there has to be an intelligent designer that was not intelligently designed in order to prevent an infinite regress.

Really? What’s your reasoning here? What about an Infinite God who launched a long but finite regress back to his Triune and Creative Self?

Concerning the Trinity…since God not only does love but is love, God needed someones to love so Father, Son and Holy Spirit have had that love relationship with each other from everlasting time and will carry it forward into eternity. But, God’s attribute of love does not exclude other attributes like justice and righteous mercy. The attributes of God are something more to ponder. Those attributes are a theme in the queen of sciences: theology.

 

[Dovekin]

the information is organized by the meteorologist. The prediction, an intelligent effect, emanates from an intelligent cause, the meteorologist.

I thought we were discussing organized information.

Animals adapted to warm water live in warm water. Animals adapted to live in cold water live in cold water. If we had a tank with cold water in one part and hot in another, the hot water animals would go where there is hot water. Such a set up would organize the animals into hot and cold water animals.

In the world, we have hot water in some places, cold in others. The forces that cause these differences are not intelligent. The effect is the same as in the designed system above: the hot water animals go into the hot water areas. Information is organized.

Generally, the animals do not consult meteorologists before deciding to live in hot or cold water. It is an example of a non-intelligent force organizing information. Evolution comes about by the organization of information in ways like this one.

 

[EndTimes]

You are on a Catholic forum. The Catholic church is larger and older than any association of scientists.

Yep …

The false notion that Existence is an Either-Or God versus Science Reality has been debunked.

The Catholic Church’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences - is the largest gathering of scientists …

_

 

[o_mlly]

… and God is the name you give to the intelligent source …

Yet another strawman. Show me where I gave that name “God” to be the intelligent source.

This is all rather confused. … I’m having a rethink… you are claiming is that it is not possible for organised information to emerge from non-intelligent sources.

Please stop strawmanning. The claim is not in the negative; it is in the positive. All living beings have an intelligent cause. The falsification of the claim is simple. Cite just one repeatable example of an intelligent effect from an unintelligent cause.

You don’t seem to have any evidence …

The confusion still reigns. Of course I have no evidence that what I claim is false. We are looking for you to provide that evidence but none is forthcoming.

In what sense is a single fertilised cell intelligent?

In the same sense that a child who cannot walk out of the birth canal is not a cripple.

Intelligence, to me, is a kind of competence, not merely a list. I do not call a book or a DVD an example of “intelligence”, even though they are both examples of “digital organised information”.

It appears you confuse cause and effect. What is the cause of the book or DVD (effects) that contains symbols of organized information? The cause is intelligent, no? These examples of intelligent effect provide further evidence in support of the claim that all intelligent effects have intelligent causes.

Let’s take the zygote of a sea-slug. You will agree, of course, that it is an example “digital organised information”, and so, by your definition, it is intelligent. But then, any strand of DNA is “digital organised information” and therefore intelligent. Every single living cell is intelligent - is that your argument?

I repeat:

Every living cell observed contains specified digital information. We call digital organized information “intelligence”. The proposition is that all intelligent effects require an intelligent cause. This proposition (two universals embedded) is easily falsifiable with just one example to the contrary. So again I ask, what repeatable intelligent effect do you offer that emanates from an unintelligent cause?

Animals adapted to warm water live in warm water. Animals adapted to live in cold water live in cold water. If we had a tank with cold water in one part and hot in another, the hot water animals would go where there is hot water. Such a set up would organize the animals into hot and cold water animals.

If we had a tank of hot and cold water it would become lukewarm water. “Animals organized” is not “information organized”. The temperature of the water does organize, rather the intelligent animals organize.

 

[EndTimes]

Yet another strawman. Show me where I gave that name “God” to be the intelligent source.

Exactly…

It reveals the Agendae of the 24/7 activist atheist wannabes

 

[rossum]

The Catholic church is larger and older than any association of scientists.

Judaism is older than Christianity, does that make it more right than Christianity? Was Christianity incorrect in its first few years when Roman Paganism or Hinduism were larger? Your arguments here are completely baseless. I am sure you can do better than this.

The burden of proof here is on the atheists…

How is this relevant to me? I am not atheist, there are many more gods in my scriptures than in yours.

Really? What’s your reasoning here? What about an Infinite God who launched a long but finite regress back to his Triune and Creative Self?

An infinite (and intelligent) God is an example of an undesigned intelligence, since He is uncaused. Hence design is not required for intelligence to exist. As you say, with God included the regress is finite, and ends with an undesigned intelligence. When examined closely, the ID paradigm fails, because it must at some point have an undesigned designer in order to avoid an infinite regress. An uncreated God is one of the options for avoiding the regress.

 

[buffalo]

The difference is where in the timeline the design is put into place. At the beginning or further along. The problem with some anti ID thinking is they fail to account for the fact we are in a degrading universe that God did not design in. Man started that process.

 

[buffalo]

Not even an atheist would disagree with that. However, he would probably ask in what way ‘front-loaded’ evolution is observably different from ‘atheist’ evolution. What would be your reply?

Top down vs bottom up. I submit design is top down and God’s creation was designed to be “good” as Genesis records. From there the direction is corruption, degradation and death. We live in a fallen world.

 

[buffalo]

If you are looking for an “intelligent effect” then you are assuming what you have to prove. Evolution has repeatedly been observed to unintelligently develop resistance to pesticides, antibiotics etc.

Indeed - this is known as adaptation. No one argues it.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Yet another strawman. Show me where I gave that name “God” to be the intelligent source.

Not a strawman. I have no wish to target anything which does not reflect your real opinion; but I do agree I made an unjustified assumption. Was it not true?

The claim is not in the negative; it is in the positive. All living beings have an intelligent cause. The falsification of the claim is simple. Cite just one repeatable example of an intelligent effect from an unintelligent cause.

Also not a strawman. At least, not on my part. You seem to keep shifting your definitions. We started with “intelligence”, then shifted to “digitally organised information”, and now it’s “all living beings.” Except it now shifts again to “intelligent effect”. I wish you’d keep things clear.

Of course I have no evidence that what I claim is false

Of course not. But you have no evidence that what you claim is true either.

In the same sense that a child who cannot walk out of the birth canal is not a cripple.

I’m sure you agree that that’s a false argument, and a shallow misuse of the word cripple. You do tend to obfuscate words, meanings and definitions, if I may say so.

It appears you confuse cause and effect. What is the cause of the book or DVD (effects) that contains symbols of organized information?

You’re doing it again. An object does not become intelligent because it was made by an intelligent being. If I saw a log in two, that does not make the sawdust intelligent, although, by your definition it is an “intelligent effect” caused by an “intelligent cause.”

I fear I’m being irritating, but I do want to understand what you really want me to do. Your simple demand “Cite just one repeatable example of an intelligent effect from an unintelligent cause” depends on an clear understanding of what we both understand by intelligence. At the moment, I rather think that your definition of an intelligent effect implicitly includes an intelligent cause, in which case, of course, the idea of an intelligent effect from an unintelligent cause is by definition impossible. Is that how you define an intelligent effect?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Top down vs bottom up.

You may be right, but my question was how to distinguish between the two by observation. Can you explain?

 

[rossum]

Indeed - this is known as adaptation. No one argues it.

Yes, it is one of the more common examples of evolution and is well accepted.

 

[Dovekin]

If we had a tank of hot and cold water it would become lukewarm water.

This is a fraudulent misrepresentation of my hypothetical.

“Animals organized” is not “information organized”.

You asked for an example of “Information organized” by something other than an intelligent cause. You did not specify the type of causality, which may be why we disagree.

The temperature of the water does organize, rather the intelligent animals organize.

In the thermometer I showed earlier, did the glass bubbles organize? If you want to go back to glass bubbles instead of animals, you can rework the hypothetical. I only switched to animals because I thought it might help you see the connection to evolution you are missing. Maybe if we switch to amino acids you will see an organization of information done by unintelligent temperature that is fundamental to what ever kind of “organized information” you want to discuss?

 

[Dovekin]

o_mlly:

Yet another strawman. Show me where I gave that name “God” to be the intelligent source.

Exactly…

It reveals the Agendae of the 24/7 activist atheist wannabes

And it reveals that God is easier to type than intelligent source!