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

[tonyrey]

And, bacteria predates mammals by a very long time… you could make the argument that humans evolved for the purpose of hosting bacteria. /quote]
Then what did bacteria evolve for? Being human guests?

 

[tonyrey]

As long as the universe is sufficiently big, old, orderly and complicated, everything can be explained as evolving without any intervention by God, the physical law is enough.

The age and size of the universe are irrelevant to the need to explain why the universe has become more complex and awe-inspiring.

The design of the law signals a creator, but only in a deist form, there’s nothing in evolution alone to hang our hat on in trying to find out more about God and any supposed purpose, we have to look elsewhere. Imho.

The immense value of life implies more than a nondescript Creator.

As evolution is completely blind with no mechanism to give purpose, in a sense it actively prevents us from being in any way preordained.

You are assuming that purpose requires a physical mechanism…

So sure we’re here as a product of evolution but humans weren’t around that long ago and we could well become extinct or evolve into something else.

Our significance doesn’t depend on how long we have existed - nor does the significance of other forms of life for matter.

Definite challenge to reconcile all this with traditional belief.

Why?

One way is to inject some guiding and unnoticed interventions by God to tickle the process into producing us…

Why do you confine interventions to us?

…but that puts Him in the role of tinkering.

Does Design necessarily exclude intervention? If so why?

Another is that if God is truly God of all creation then any creature capable of relating to Him is perforce in God’s image, not just us.

Why do you assume **we **are the only ones capable of relating to Him?

BTW Your scepticism becomes more evident and more evident from one post to the next…

What exactly do you believe?

 

[greylorn]

Well, if God intended creation to freely evolve by itself according to certain principles, then it is not surprising at all that universe took so long to evolve to what it is now. It depends on what God wants out of creation. I don’t think you are in any position to judge ill of the creators intellect merely because you would prefer to create a non-evolving universe that merely moves according to your say so and your giant ego.

While the purpose of creation is extremely relevant to questions about why, it is not relevant to this particular question which is about “how.”

You do me a considerable disservice of misunderstanding. I happen to admire the Creator’s intellect, mainly because I do not denigrate it with an incompetent, insulting adjective such as, “omniscient.”

The entity which you define as God, being omniscient, never exercises effort of thought, never has to figure something out. Should he choose to create something, he never has to do serious trial-and-error engineering, never has to figure out how to integrate a complex design involving multiple components, or balance an ecology with a billion different species. He just exercises an act of effortless will, a kind of God-like fingersnap, and whatever he thinks comes into existence. Your God exercises no thought and mental effort whatsoever.

The universe provides zero evidence for the existence of your God.

My notion of God, an entity Who is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, actually had to figure out how to create a universe. Having studied only very small bits and pieces of His handiwork, I am awed by its brilliance and complexity. Having occasionally exercised my small mind in the furtherance of technological advancements, book writing, and just trying to figure out why our scientific models for reality are so bad, I profoundly appreciate the mind who actually created the reality I seek to understand.

The evidence provided by the universe is entirely supportive of a long-term engineering process, with the inevitable trial-and-error tracks left by all such processes, and an end result indicative of engineering brilliance— except that human concepts of “brilliance” do not come close to describing the mind(s) behind creation.

I admire the Creator, or as it may be, the Creators. You do not get to peer up from your books full of primitive dogma and impugn my appreciation of God, whatever He, She, It, or They may be.

 

[greylorn]

Just because you know the miller experiment doesn’t mean everyone knows it… so yawn away… and I am not writing to your standard?.. didnt know I was in an English class on a forum. I need no class thanks, I have enough of them. My point is Evolution exists, it just doesn’t explain the origin of life… but you missed that I guess.

We communicate in English here. If you want anyone to pay attention to you, why not learn to use it properly?

Your inability to do so, and the tendency to get into a self-defensive twit when corrected, suggests a small mind which is over-impressed by the small store of value within, learned from a few simple, mostly wrong, classes, typical of 13-year old kids who have finally realized how brilliant they are.

Your reference to the Miller experiment was simply your way of demonstrating that you’ve taken a high school biology class. Congratulations. When will you graduate?

 

[benedictus2]

Why is that?

Actually, I need to correct my statement. On a sctrictly Darwinian evolution, we do not even get to a Deist God since it presupposes that everything just happened by chance.

However, if we factor in design, then we get to a Deist God, a Super Intelligent Being. But that is about all. We cannot infer purpose from design. For all we know, Creation might just be God’s doodle - a very orderly doodle.

 

[benedictus2]

Then what did bacteria evolve for? Being human guests?

That’s a brilliant one liner

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Actually, I need to correct my statement. On a sctrictly Darwinian evolution, we do not even get to a Deist God since it presupposes that everything just happened by chance.

No it doesn’t. It presupposes that chance is an attribute which is necessary so that the process of natural evolution can take place. It doesn’t mean that evolution does not exist for a purpose.
benedictus2;8405313:

However, if we factor in design, then we get to a Deist God, a Super Intelligent Being. But that is about all.

We get a bit more than that; we get a being that fits the basic metaphysical attributes that apply to the Abrahamic monotheistic God.

We cannot infer purpose from design. For all we know, Creation might just be God’s doodle - a very orderly doodle.

This is just a thoughtless assertion. The metaphysical attributes of God, once understood in their proper context, necessarily implies a purpose for the universe. The idea that God would do a doodle for no apparent reason is meaningless and contradictory.

 

[tonyrey]

Then what did bacteria evolve for? Being human guests?

I must admit I enjoyed writing it - and it requires an intelligent answer (if there is such a thing!) which doesn’t seem to be forthcoming…

 

[greylorn]

I must admit I enjoyed writing it - and it requires an intelligent answer (if there is such a thing!) which doesn’t seem to be forthcoming…

If you insist…

An answer can be no better than its question. Your question is pejorative, assuming that microbugs evolved.

Consider the more interesting possibility, that they are all engineered for a purpose. We cannot survive w/o the microbugs in our gut. The total DNA in our guts far exceeds the DNA in our germ cells. Obviously, most of these bacteria were engineered for a purpose.

This does not explain all bugs. But given that the probability of a two-point DNA mutation in a single bacterium is about 1x10-12] (one per trillion) per replication, the odds against effective random mutations are small, instead favoring deliberate gene modification, and suggesting that your question is irrelevant.

 

[tonyrey]

*I must admit I enjoyed writing it - and it requires an intelligent answer (if there is such a thing!) which doesn’t seem to be forthcoming… *

It is an ironic assumption!

Consider the more interesting possibility, that they are all engineered for a purpose. We cannot survive w/o the microbugs in our gut. The total DNA in our guts far exceeds the DNA in our germ cells. Obviously, most of these bacteria were engineered for a purpose.

This does not explain all bugs. But given that the probability of a two-point DNA mutation in a single bacterium is about 1x10-12] (one per trillion) per replication, the odds against effective random mutations are small, instead favoring deliberate gene modification, and suggesting that your question is irrelevant.

I’m delighted that we agree that

… you could make the argument that humans evolved for the purpose of hosting bacteria.

is totally absurd!

 

[benedictus2]

No it doesn’t. It presupposes that chance is an attribute which is necessary so that the process of natural evolution can take place. It doesn’t mean that evolution does not exist for a purpose.

!st. Where in the theory of evolution does it make chance a “necessity for the process”? If this is so then you are saying that it is impossible for things to evolve without chance.

2nd. Evolution does not presuppose purpose if we take Darwinian evolution as it is. One cannot study evolution and conclude that there is a God. Without a God, what gives evolution purpose? If everything happened by chance, how does one conclude that there is a purpose?

We get a bit more than that; we get a being that fits the basic metaphysical attributes that apply to the Abrahamic monotheistic God.

No we don’t. Just because something was designed does not mean that it was done for a purpose. There is a possibility that that design is just a doodle - something that God did for no reason.

To conclude purpose, one needs more than just design. One cannot logically come up with the Abrahamic God simply by saying that something has been designed. The other attributes of the Judeo-Christian God are not dependent on the universe having been designed.

This is just a thoughtless assertion. The metaphysical attributes of God, once understood in their proper context, necessarily implies a purpose for the universe. The idea that God would do a doodle for no apparent reason is meaningless and contradictory.

No it is not thoughtless and it is not an assertion. The metaphysical attributes of God do not stem from design.

As a matter of fact, if you think otherwise, why don’t you make the case for it. Show that design “necessarily” means purpose.

 

[benedictus2]

If you insist…

An answer can be no better than its question. Your question is pejorative, assuming that microbugs evolved.

Consider the more interesting possibility, that they are all engineered for a purpose.

We cannot survive w/o the microbugs in our gut. The total DNA in our guts far exceeds the DNA in our germ cells. Obviously, most of these bacteria were engineered for a purpose.

This does not explain all bugs. But given that the probability of a two-point DNA mutation in a single bacterium is about 1x10-12] (one per trillion) per replication, the odds against effective random mutations are small, instead favoring deliberate gene modification, and suggesting that your question is irrelevant.

No doubt they were engineered for a purpose. Still it does not mean that microbugs did not evolve. What I mean here by “evolve” though is not the strictly Darwinian manner.

 

[greylorn]

No doubt they were engineered for a purpose. Still it does not mean that microbugs did not evolve. What I mean here by “evolve” though is not the strictly Darwinian manner.

Using common words with a special meaning which you keep all to yourself is a great way to win arguments— with yourself.

 

[benedictus2]

Using common words with a special meaning which you keep all to yourself is a great way to win arguments— with yourself.

Apologies, I thought you may have come across my caveat but I probably wrote that in another thread.

Here it is. When I use the term “evolve”, I simply mean that creation was done through a progression from a lower form of life to a higher form. But unlike true Darwinian evolutionists, I do not believe that this progression happened by pure chance. I believe that it was completely designed and that what we see as chance was actually built into this progression.

 

[inocente]

Have you read Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man”?

If you are a patient reader, you might endure long enough into the book to get to those chapters where Chesterton talks about evolution and makes the point clearly enough that
one needs more than the deist god of Aristotle to explain the process of Creation from start to finish.

This book is one of the ten sources C.S. Lewis cited as helping him convert from atheism to Christianity.

Sorry about the delay, been snowed under.

Found the book online at gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100311.txt so I dipped in at three random points and you were right, sorry but I don’t have the patience. Imho he could take a few tips from the likes of Ernest Hemingway and Paul of Tarsus in getting to the point.

 

[inocente]

The immense value of life implies more than a nondescript Creator.

Yes, but on this and your other comments I was looking at how much we can conclude from the theory of evolution alone.

Definite challenge to reconcile all this with traditional belief.

Why?

Statement of fact – you must have led a quiet life to never notice that evolution gets a lot of folk hot under the collar.

Does Design necessarily exclude intervention? If so why?

I was just following the logic of big bang and evolution, which say that the physical law is so perfect that it can produce intelligent life all by itself. God would then only need to intervene if He had His heart specifically set on producing planet Earth and Home sapiens, and in that case He would have to intervene a colossal number of times over the last 14 billion years to get that exact result, a bizarrely inept business when He could easily have created us on the spot instead. So yes, I think we can’t logically accept both evolution and a tinkering God, and since an interventionist God must necessarily be less perfect than One who created a perfect physical law, my money’s on the latter.

*Why do you assume **we ***are the only ones capable of relating to Him?

Didn’t say that - said the exact opposite.

*BTW Your scepticism becomes more evident and more evident from one post to the next… *

I’m forced to decline your skeptic badge as there’s no room left on my chest after all the other badges you’re awarded me across many threads.

What exactly do you believe?

Exactly?

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few believable things

Cream colored ponies and crisp apple streudels
Doorbells and sleigh bells and schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few more believable things

Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winters that melt into springs
These are a few more believable things

 

[benedictus2]

I was just following the logic of big bang and evolution, which say that the physical law is so perfect that it can produce intelligent life all by itself.

Actually, the Big Bang and evolution proposes no such logic. All that could be said is that the laws are perfect. Of itself, the production of intelligent life is not a logical conclusion. That conclusion was drawn by some evolutionists and cosmologists but they are not in the least logical.

 

[tonyrey]

The immense value of life implies more than a nondescript Creator.

The final answer in your present post is revealing…

Definite challenge to reconcile all this with traditional belief.

Why?
Statement of fact – you must have led a quiet life to never notice that evolution gets a lot of folk hot under the collar.

That’s the Darwinist version!

Does Design necessarily exclude intervention? If so why?

I was just following the logic of big bang and evolution, which say that the physical law is so perfect that it can produce intelligent life all by itself.

How can purposeless regularity be perfect when it produces so many mishaps?

God would then only need to intervene if He had His heart specifically set on producing planet Earth and Home sapiens, and in that case He would have to intervene a colossal number of times over the last 14 billion years to get that exact result, a bizarrely inept business when He could easily have created us on the spot instead.

Development in an immensely complex universe necessarily entails deviations from its main upward trend towards greater consciousness, sensitivity and autonomy. There is no obvious reason why the current human desire for instant coffee, instant films and instant results should be related to the nature of reality!

Is a totally haphazard process your interpretation of life?

So yes, I think we can’t logically accept both evolution and a tinkering God, and since an interventionist God must necessarily be less perfect than One who created a perfect physical law, my money’s on the latter.

How can a perfect physical law be perfect when it produces so many mishaps?

Why do you assume we are the only ones capable of relating to Him?

Didn’t say that - said the exact opposite.

No one or everyone?

I’m forced to decline your skeptic badge as there’s no room left on my chest after all the other badges you’re awarded me across many threads.

Scepticism sums them up until:

What exactly do you believe?

Exactly?

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few believable things

Cream colored ponies and crisp apple streudels
Doorbells and sleigh bells and schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few more believable things

Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winters that melt into springs
These are a few more believable things

Most refreshing and not so “bizarrely inept”! So life is valuable… and purposeful…

 

[RICKY_RASPER]

As a young boy I would head out at night into the meadow with my grandfather to look at the stars. In the inky darkness the horizon would merge into the night sky so that you would feel suspended in the heavens. My grandpa would point out the constellations and planets.He had been doing this for so many years that he could predict the position of the planets with no charts.He knew when the disc of the moon would obscure a particular star or planet. He told me that there was not a watch on planet earth not even an atomic clock that could keep time like the solar system. I asked my grandfather who wound the clock up? He was an atheist at the time and he said nothing.The next weekend we headed back into our heaven lit meadow.
The first word that came from my grandfathers mouth that night was…" God "…I asked my granddad what he meant, I thought he had discovered a supernova or something.
You asked me who wound the clock up last week…I’ve been thinking about it all week…God wound the clock up…their can be no other answer! In a week my grandfather had moved from atheist to believer. A couple of weeks ago I went back to the old meadow. Thirty years had changed it, but the heavens had not missed a beat.
R.I.P Granda

 

[tonyrey]

As a young boy I would head out at night into the meadow with my grandfather to look at the stars. In the inky darkness the horizon would merge into the night sky so that you would feel suspended in the heavens. My grandpa would point out the constellations and planets.He had been doing this for so many years that he could predict the position of the planets with no charts.He knew when the disc of the moon would obscure a particular star or planet. He told me that there was not a watch on planet earth not even an atomic clock that could keep time like the solar system. I asked my grandfather who wound the clock up? He was an atheist at the time and he said nothing.The next weekend we headed back into our heaven lit meadow.
The first word that came from my grandfathers mouth that night was…" God "…I asked my granddad what he meant, I thought he had discovered a supernova or something.
You asked me who wound the clock up last week…I’ve been thinking about it all week…God wound the clock up…their can be no other answer! In a week my grandfather had moved from atheist to believer. A couple of weeks ago I went back to the old meadow. Thirty years had changed it, but the heavens had not missed a beat.
R.I.P Granda

Your moving account of your grandfather s conversion reminds me of a great philosopher’s words*:

*“Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.”

• Immanuel Kant