The Teleological Arguement: Has the truth of evolution destroyed it?

[benedictus2]

This will be my last post on this thread. If this thread represents the general quality to be found on the forum generally, I won’t be a participant for long.

If your post is the general kind of post that we find in this forum, then I would have quit long ago. Thank goodness that is not the case.

You remind me of another poster who never engages in discussion. He dumps then exits, Dumps then exists. Why, are you scared of actually going to and fro with anyone? Afraid of rebuttal and counter rebuttals?

Or is this a case of wanting only to listen to the sound of your own voice?

 

[Maturia_Broncon]

Please unpack this.

How about you tell me how a directional and purposeful law that makes creatures progressively more complex isn’t teleological?

 

[Link0126]

No, b/c evolution is not true.

 

[buffalo]

How about you tell me how a directional and purposeful law that makes creatures progressively more complex isn’t teleological?

It is. That means it is designed and a great argument in support of IDvolution. Is this what you intended?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is. That means it is designed and a great argument in support of IDvolution. Is this what you intended?

The Intelligent design movement is the idea that the scientific method has the capacity to demonstrate the existence of intelligent design. I believe the very underlying nature of the scientific method (methodological naturalism) makes this proposition invalid; and thus i don’t believe that intelligent design can reasonably be called a scientific theory. Intelligent design theory is not to be confused with the teleological argument which is argued on purely philosophical grounds and has nothing to do with science. I am not in favor of Behe-design being taught in science classes.

 

[buffalo]

The Intelligent design movement is the idea that the scientific method has the capacity to demonstrate the existence of intelligent design. I believe the very underlying nature of the scientific method (methodological naturalism) makes this proposition invalid; and thus i don’t believe that intelligent design can reasonably be called a scientific theory. Intelligent design theory is not to be confused with the teleological argument which is argued on purely philosophical grounds and has nothing to do with science. I am not in favor of Behe-design being taught in science classes.

Let’s start with definitions:

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

What do you disagree with?

 

[James224]

Hello TAquinas21 and others,

This is just a summary of my thoughts on the arguments presented. I am new to philosophy and have a lot to learn. I am use to debating apologetics between faiths on CARM and Catholic Answers and I did it for years and was good at it but I’m an infant when it comes to Philosphy.

Aquinas used philosophy to show the reasonableness of faith. He said it was a science. His 24 Principles of Philosophy are overwhelming to me right now (catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/thomast.htm) but I know myself and I will push myself to learn as much as possible. Now, I understand that Vatican I, in Council, said that proof of the existence of God can be known by reason alone. I think Aristotle proved it before Christianity. Aquinas goes in depth on this in his Summa Contra Gentiles. He shows only a brief version in the Summa Theologica. I think the problem on the forum is that St. Thomas’ Philosophical Principles are difficult, no only to know real well, but also it’s hard to bring the totality of his philosphy to bear on any one person’s question and arguments. I don’t think its wrong to try and express his principles as we know them because we can all learn from it and learn the counter-arguments.

I appreciate TAquinas21’s arguments and all the others because I’m learning from them and want you to know that you are definitely not wasting your time. I’m here to learn!

 

[JackieAces]

Trevor,
Yeah. I’m allotted one good day each month, and that day wasn’t it.

I’d not heard of Deem before your mention. 20 minutes of googling gave me the general picture of a strong I.D. proponent, but I could not find anything which piqued my interest, like some snazzy ideas unthought of previously.

I’ve read several I.D. books and found no problem with their arguments— some were excellent, but they all seem dedicated to a common focus, that of justifying the truth of the Bible.

Their approach reflects that of the heavily-credentialed participants in a Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate I attended long ago, in which both sides successfully (IMO) demonstrated that the other side was wrong. I managed to get a question in during a Q & A session:
*You’ve all done an excellent job of proving that the other side is wrong. However, you’ve not established any reason for us to assume that proving one side wrong makes the other side right. What you’ve actually done is demonstrate the need for an explanation of creation which is entirely different from either of yours. Why not scrap all your beliefs and get together on the development of a whole new theory? *

I have just joined CA, and I have only read some of this thread, I just have a question. Why is it Creationism vs evolution. Evolution studies how microorganisms evolve over time. Evolution exists, microorganisms evolve and adapt to their environment for survival all of the time… and creationism, that is the origin of life. There is a study of the origin of life…abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the search for the method by which life on Earth arose… They have many theories and have tested them… even in 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested a hypothesis by conducting an experiment that attempted to simulate the atmospheric conditions of primitive earth. they boiled water into vapor at the bottom of a flask and then passed it through an apparatus, combining with ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. They then subjected the resulting mixture to a 50,000-volt-spark before cooling and collecting it in a trap at the bottom of the apparatus. When Miller and Urey examined the resulting tar-like substance, they found a collection of amino acids, the building blocks of life. But… there was a few problems… he did not honestly simulate conditions on the primordial earth. For example, oxygen was evidently present on the early earth – but the presence of oxygen prohibits the development of organic compounds… also Amino acid conformations exist as mirror-isomers. In other words, there are left-handed (L-form) amino acids, as well as right-handed (D-form) amino acids. The amino acids that comprise living proteins are of the left-handed form, yet in simulations such as Miller’s, an equal mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids are produced. Well that won’t work… they will never make proteins and peptide bonds…But let us suppose that not only was a naturalistic mechanism discovered which could segregate the left-handed forms needed for life, but also a soup was discovered which possessed a mystical capacity to form proteins. To form a living cell requires hundreds of specialized proteins that need to be precisely coordinated. We would also need to produce DNA, RNA, a cell membrane, and a host of other chemical compounds – not to mention arranging them into their correct locations to perform their respective functions. I think that Dean Kenyon concludes this up right by saying, “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established.”… So back to the point, Evolution and Creationism are both explanations, one is the explanation of how we change over time, and one is the explanation of the origin of life (with faith and seeing that life is way too complex to have spontaneous life, and the fact that it isn’t still happening… you know… new spontaneous life just happening…). Abiogenesis is the science study of how life originated, and atheists and Christians are working together in that department… but all you have to do is open your heart to the possibility that Christ exists, and he will give you all the proof you will need…

 

[asker42]

Evolution does not disprove the teleological argument because that would assume that things could work towards a purpose without design when in fact they can’t. So if a heart couldn’t go through its workings unless it were designed then it couldn’t go through its workings unless it were designed even if it were deisgned over a long period of time.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I am always puzzled, and perhaps a little amused, by evolutionists when they say that if there were a God, it would have been more believable for him to have created the universe in seven days rather than billions of years.

 

[tonyrey]

No, b/c evolution is not true.

The Catholic Church has accepted evolution provided it is regarded as the means by which God has created the different forms of life.

 

[buffalo]

The Catholic Church has accepted evolution provided it is regarded as the means by which God has created the different forms of life.

Magisterial source?

 

[greylorn]

I am always puzzled, and perhaps a little amused, by evolutionists when they say that if there were a God, it would have been more believable for him to have created the universe in seven days rather than billions of years.

Presuming that the omnipotent, omniscient God in which religionists believe is the same God in Whom evolutionists disbelieve, it is obvious by definition that such a God could have created the entire universe in a moment. That’s what all-power and all-knowledge is all about.

That He should spend as long as six-days seems like dawdling, but that might be understood if God was particularly enjoying the process of creation and wanted to take it in phases, perhaps pausing to admire his own work.

However it is silly to believe that a creator who could have done the job in an instant would have screwed around with the job for 13-odd billion years. Why would He take so long? Unnecessary dawdling is the kind of behavior we expect from slow-witted people with very short attention spans, congressmen, and unionized “workers.”

That an almighty God would spend 13 billion years on any given project is equivalent to a normal human being taking one month to pick up a sock from the floor.

God would only spend so much time on creation if, upon choosing to undertake the project, He had no idea how to go about it. The evolutionists, being quite intelligent except for their religious devotion to Darwinism, have gotten this one exactly right.

 

[buffalo]

Presuming that the omnipotent, omniscient God in which religionists believe is the same God in Whom evolutionists disbelieve, it is obvious by definition that such a God could have created the entire universe in a moment. That’s what all-power and all-knowledge is all about.

That He should spend as long as six-days seems like dawdling, but that might be understood if God was particularly enjoying the process of creation and wanted to take it in phases, perhaps pausing to admire his own work.

However it is silly to believe that a creator who could have done the job in an instant would have screwed around with the job for 13-odd billion years. Why would He take so long? Unnecessary dawdling is the kind of behavior we expect from slow-witted people with very short attention spans, congressmen, and unionized “workers.”

That an almighty God would spend 13 billion years on any given project is equivalent to a normal human being taking one month to pick up a sock from the floor.

God would only spend so much time on creation if, upon choosing to undertake the project, He had no idea how to go about it. The evolutionists, being quite intelligent except for their religious devotion to Darwinism, have gotten this one exactly right.

Maybe he didn’t. Perhaps he did it at billion times speed and slowed it down for us.

Like this - all the steps were still there to finish.

 

[greylorn]

I have just joined CA, and I have only read some of this thread, I just have a question. Why is it Creationism vs evolution. Evolution studies how microorganisms evolve over time. Evolution exists, microorganisms evolve and adapt to their environment for survival all of the time… and creationism, that is the origin of life. There is a study of the origin of life…abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the search for the method by which life on Earth arose… They have many theories and have tested them… even in 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested a hypothesis by conducting an experiment that attempted to simulate the atmospheric conditions of primitive earth. they boiled water into vapor at the bottom of a flask and then passed it through an apparatus, combining with ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. They then subjected the resulting mixture to a 50,000-volt-spark before cooling and collecting it in a trap at the bottom of the apparatus. When Miller and Urey examined the resulting tar-like substance, they found a collection of amino acids, the building blocks of life. But… there was a few problems… he did not honestly simulate conditions on the primordial earth. For example, oxygen was evidently present on the early earth – but the presence of oxygen prohibits the development of organic compounds… also Amino acid conformations exist as mirror-isomers. In other words, there are left-handed (L-form) amino acids, as well as right-handed (D-form) amino acids. The amino acids that comprise living proteins are of the left-handed form, yet in simulations such as Miller’s, an equal mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids are produced. Well that won’t work… they will never make proteins and peptide bonds…But let us suppose that not only was a naturalistic mechanism discovered which could segregate the left-handed forms needed for life, but also a soup was discovered which possessed a mystical capacity to form proteins. To form a living cell requires hundreds of specialized proteins that need to be precisely coordinated. We would also need to produce DNA, RNA, a cell membrane, and a host of other chemical compounds – not to mention arranging them into their correct locations to perform their respective functions. I think that Dean Kenyon concludes this up right by saying, “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established.”… So back to the point, Evolution and Creationism are both explanations, one is the explanation of how we change over time, and one is the explanation of the origin of life (with faith and seeing that life is way too complex to have spontaneous life, and the fact that it isn’t still happening… you know… new spontaneous life just happening…). Abiogenesis is the science study of how life originated, and atheists and Christians are working together in that department… but all you have to do is open your heart to the possibility that Christ exists, and he will give you all the proof you will need…

You need to learn how to manage quotes, and take a remedial eighth grade course in paragraphing.

Yes, yes, the Miller experiment. Yawn.

Suppose that all the biochemists in the world got together and designed a huge lab, full of temperature controlled flasks and beakers and electric sparks designed to simulate the conditions of primordial earth. As (name removed by moderator)ut they load it with some mud, seawater, nitrogen, methane— whatever. Then they go away and leave it running for, let say five years. Upon returning, they open the output bin, whereupon a group of little green men with three legs, four arms, and five eye-stalks, step out. What have they proven?

Only that it is possible for intelligent beings with some detailed knowledge of physics and chemistry to create life.

 

[inocente]

That an almighty God would spend 13 billion years on any given project is equivalent to a normal human being taking one month to pick up a sock from the floor.

Maybe he didn’t. Perhaps he did it at billion times speed and slowed it down for us.

You both appear to be saying that God finished creation on the day you were born. I like the egocentricity of this and will make the counter claim that creation really came to a close on the day I bought my flat-screen TV.

 

[tonyrey]

However it is silly to believe that a creator who could have done the job in an instant would have screwed around with the job for 13-odd billion years.

Your notion of economy has been fostered by the current mania for quick results: instant coffee, instant photos and now… instant Creation!

What’s the hurry?

 

[greylorn]

Your notion of economy has been fostered by the current mania for quick results: instant coffee, instant photos and now… instant Creation!

What’s the hurry?

A better question is, Why the long, long delay?

And an even better question is one that only works for someone who’s made at least a cursory study of biological lines. Why the many, many, evolutionary dead ends?

They make perfect sense in a Darwinian scheme, of course. They make no sense under the assumption of an omniscient creator. They make excellent sense if the creator had not figured things out and needed to experiment, just like human engineers.

 

[greylorn]

You both appear to be saying that God finished creation on the day you were born. I like the egocentricity of this and will make the counter claim that creation really came to a close on the day I bought my flat-screen TV.

The new TV must explain your inability to read competently.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Presuming that the omnipotent, omniscient God in which religionists believe is the same God in Whom evolutionists disbelieve, it is obvious by definition that such a God could have created the entire universe in a moment. That’s what all-power and all-knowledge is all about.

That He should spend as long as six-days seems like dawdling, but that might be understood if God was particularly enjoying the process of creation and wanted to take it in phases, perhaps pausing to admire his own work.

However it is silly to believe that a creator who could have done the job in an instant would have screwed around with the job for 13-odd billion years. Why would He take so long? Unnecessary dawdling is the kind of behavior we expect from slow-witted people with very short attention spans, congressmen, and unionized “workers.”

That an almighty God would spend 13 billion years on any given project is equivalent to a normal human being taking one month to pick up a sock from the floor.

God would only spend so much time on creation if, upon choosing to undertake the project, He had no idea how to go about it. The evolutionists, being quite intelligent except for their religious devotion to Darwinism, have gotten this one exactly right.

Your point would present problems, if God wasn’t atemporal. But being that He is, this argument falls short.