What is Intelligent Design

[dcdurel]

40% of scientists believe in a God-directed evolution.

 

[Ghosty]

40% of scientists believe in a God-directed evolution.

Yes, but they can’t prove it scientifically. That’s the key point against ID.

 

[batteddy]

It ultimately depends what we mean by “random”.

God, through his Almighty Providence, is the sovereign master of all history…though he gives humans and angels free will.

As such, nothing truly random ever occurs in the material Universe…though it may seem so. Everything occurs according to Gods will. He made the natural laws, and he can guide them.

We know that on the quantum level there is a great seething foam of seeming randomness. We have even heard that often times there are different outcomes to some of those tiny events that could all occur, and with equal probability, but for some reason…only one outcome occurs.

Some theorists in physics have gone so far as to suggest that reality splits every time a particle makes such a “choice”…with one universe going on with one choice…and another universe continuing with the second.

Other scientists simply believe that the fact that the other option is not chosen is just randomness.

But I believe it is on this quantum level, or perhaps even below it…that God works his Providence…

By choosing which of two options of equal probability occurs…God has total control without having to override scientific laws he has set.

Because there are not many actual scientific impossibilities. Rather, we now recognize that they are merely improbabilities…

Such as walking through a wall…its not impossible…it could happen if all the particles by “chance” lined up correctly…we just have found that in the general statistics of the universe this chance is not very high at all…

And yet God could work a miracle. And he wouldn’t even have to suspend any physical laws and make something impossible happen…all he would have to do is make something highly improbable happen. So by directly choosing, at that quantum level, exactly what choices those seemingly eccentric particles are going to make…he can do things like that. Generally, in his wisdom, he does not choose the particles to line up…so we do not fall through the floor…but if he wanted to he could…

So it depends what we mean by random. For in the Catholic Faith, with the Almighty and Providential God…there is no true randomness, even when there seems to be, for God controls all history directly and thoroughly somehow…I have suggested one possible method as to how he does this above.

This applies to the evolution argument. It is clear from science that species evolved into one another. And it is relatively clear that this happened through natural selection and survival of the fittest. And it is relatively clear that the reason some individuals were more fit than others was because of genetic differences. And there was apparently a lot of chance involved. The mutations would perhaps be by seeming chance…and even being more genetically fit didn’t garauntee survival and evolution…because lightning or a falling tree could kill you before you had a chance to reproduce. So chance circumstances had a lot to do with it.

But religiously, is it acceptable to believe there really is chance? I dont know…I dont think so.

Do I deny, like the IDers, that chance could ever lead to the spontaneous development of complex organisms as part of the reactions of matter? No, definitely not.

I believe that mathematically it is quite clear that given the right conditions and 4 BILLION years (I think part of the reason that some people question evolution’s ability to create complexity by chance is because they dont comprehend how incredibly long a time that is…) complex things could start to survive and those that caused more of themselves to be formed, with better reproductive qualities, would survive more…and then with a little luck and a lot of time…could get more and more complex and adapt extremely gradually…

I dont believe, like the IDers, that life-forms’ complexities intrinsically suggest an intellegent designer. I believe that quite clearly, organisms could still arise through seeming “chance” if there was hypothetically no God.

BUT…I believe there IS a God. And I believe through his Providence he controls all. He set the physical laws, and he also guides there implementation directly and completely. And so I believe that he brought about evolution through Providence, and decided every minute detail about the incredibly huge ammount of events that went into it over the eons, and ultimately guided it subtly, perhaps by deciding exactly which of two equally probable “chances” would win out in uncountable cases…and ultimately he created a human body…and you know the rest.

 

[oriel36]

jdnation:

Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.

Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.

This is like watching an exercise in indoctrination and that if you repeat it often enough it will be true.If Catholics imagine it is that simple they may as well believe any hoax that comes along for ultimately it is fiction.

Newton did not compute planetary orbits,he tried to fit his ballistic agenda into the already existing Keplerian framework.Newton’s disciples then introduced ‘Kepler’s laws’ to nicely mesh with Newton’s gravitational laws.Newton never wrote f = ma

"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma… but never, went beyond F = d(mv)/dt and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant. That was done by
the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of Course the Principia is not written in the language of Algerbra but of geometry

Petr Beckmann

Once Newton’s framework is presented geometrically it is a cartoon,a freak show that would outdo any fictional account.*He mixes Roemer’s insight on finite light distance with Keplerian motion,has interchangeable orbits for the Earth and the Sun.

Newton re-introduces geocentricity back into astronomy from pure Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity.

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

“The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances.” Kepler
The difference between the Kepler and Newton is technically night and day for the only justification for Newton’s see-sawing orbits based on distances from the Earth to the Sun is the worthless sidereal astronomical justification.Once you make a mistake or cook the astronomical books like that the modelling of celestial structure and motion becomes impossible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*

PHÆNOMENON V.

Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of description.

For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined.

 

[mlchance]

Ghosty:

Yes, but they can’t prove it scientifically. That’s the key point against ID.

I’ve not read any proponent of ID say that they can scientifically prove anything is directed by God. So I guess that makes the objection above something of a strawman.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jdnation:

So what? You found fossils of extinct animals. Much to the surprise of evolutionists today, some of these animals thought long extinct are sometimes actually found alive! They give them the name ‘living fossils.’ Anyway, what’s the argument here??

So you figure there’s maybe a living T-Rex in the City Park that no one has discovered?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

jdnation:

They are short some of the things their previous forms were.

Like what?

jdnation:

I know of no other, please inform me of what the accepted part is. God?

How about environmental pressure?

jdnation:

What? What did that have to do with what I said?

The issue is species change through switching **on **and off genes in the long DNA chain. You made a big thing about how switching off makes the organism less complex, but failed to mention switching genes on.

jdnation:
We were talking about the idea of scientists pushing God out of the picture. The scientific community is made up of lots of different people with their own philosophical opinions, both theists and atheists, creationists and naturalists, and those like you who comprimise between the two worldviews. I used Darwin as an example. You responded to that without a problem, and I explained further how his worldview shaped his speculation.*

And you did it as if all scientists were clones of Darwin.

Vern>As opposed to someone who believes – in some oddball mathematical model that doesn’t exist?

Well this is honestly the first time I’ve heard about this. Could you please teach me about the resolution to that oddity?

There is no resolution – that’s what makes it an oddball. Scroll up and you will find a discussion about the purported “mathematical” issue in ID and its lack of substance.

 

[RobbyS]

philipmarus:

I read that article in the NYT this morning. It bothered me all day. I find two things most disturbing.

1. The willingness of critics of Intelligent Design to extend their attacks beyond ID and to attack the christian idea of
   Original sin directly. The article writes:

“Nature appears to be an avid abortionist, which ought to trouble Christians who believe in both original sin and the doctrine that a human being equipped with a soul comes into existence at conception. Souls bearing the stain of original sin, we are told, do not merit salvation. That is why, according to traditional theology, unbaptized babies have to languish in limbo for all eternity. Owing to faulty reproductive design, it would seem that the population of limbo must be at least twice that of heaven and hell combined”

• I’ve seen this same argument used by those trying to justify contraception and abortion as morally acceptable. I myself find small imperfections in the design possible evidence that further demonstrate the reality of original sin.

1. The attempt to draft Pope John Paul to support the authors views. I have heard that these short quotes are taken out of context but I have been unable to find the complete text of the Pope’s remark’s to read them in context. I myself am a little suspicious when the writer only quotes two or three single words of the Pope without even giving us the complete sentence in which they were said. Nevertheless, whatever the context the Pope’s remarks, I think there is a problem when scientific materialists don’t simply confine themselves to their area of expertise and try to practice theology as the above quote demonstrates. There is an agenda here that involves more than simply vindicating evolution over ID objections.

ID basically starts from the position that from the Darwinian postulates one cannot deduce all biological evidence. So in a sense it is a rebuttal to the atheism of that school.

 

[vern_humphrey]

RobbyS:

ID basically starts from the position that from the Darwinian postulates one cannot deduce all biological evidence. So in a sense it is a rebuttal to the atheism of that school.

Evolution is not fundamentally atheistic, nor is ID a very good rebuttal.

 

[RobbyS]

Ghosty:

Yes, but they can’t prove it scientifically. That’s the key point against ID.

Neither can the “other side” prove it. As for common descent, the logical position is that all life is generated by a certain process. What not several or even continuous development of life from dead matter?

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

And witness how with solid evidence, the wave theory of light carried the day – not by its proponents holding their breath and kicking their heels, but by them providing more and more evidence.

sure. but you are perhaps missing my point, which is that for a long time, people simply rejected alternative theories out of hand for decidedly un-scientific reasons, much as you seem to be doing here.
vern humphrey:

What coin do you propose to offer in its place?

unbiased willingness to consider the possibility of the truth of alternative hypotheses.
vern humphrey:

Science at its core is scepticism – it rejects that for which there is no evidence. That is the coin of science. Do you expect us to believe EVERYTHING anyone proposes, without any evidence at all?

this is a bit of a simplistic characterization of science - theory-building is almost never choice between hypotheses for which there is no evidence, and those for which there is a great deal; it is most often the case that the competitors are models each of which is capable of explaining the experimental data, but perhaps with more or less elegance or simplicity or comprehensiveness, or with some other preferred combination of the explanatory virtues, of which simple faithfulness to the facts is only one.

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

Buffalo: Selectively quoting Church Fathers doesn’t prove your point, because I can match them with contrary quotes by other Church Fathers.

.

So when do you and Vern claim the Church made its first defense against evolution.

 

[Ghosty]

The only doctrinal statements regarding evolution directly that I’m aware of come from Humani Generis. Other accounts, for and against, do not represent authoritative statements.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

sure. but you are perhaps missing my point, which is that for a long time, people simply rejected alternative theories out of hand for decidedly un-scientific reasons, much as you seem to be doing here…

The people you’re speaking of are not those who advance evolution. Science was under attack by non-scientists, not the other way 'round.
john doran:

unbiased willingness to consider the possibility of the truth of alternative hypotheses…

I’ll grant you that easily enough – there are several alternative hypotheses on evolution. The problem is when people offer an “alternative hypothesis” with no evidence, and expect it to be granted the same status as those which stand on hard evidence.
Vern Humphrey:

Science at its core is scepticism – it rejects that for which there is no evidence. That is the coin of science. Do you expect us to believe EVERYTHING anyone proposes, without any evidence at all

?*
john doran:

this is a bit of a simplistic characterization of science - theory-building is almost never choice between hypotheses for which there is no evidence, and those for which there is a great deal; it is most often the case that the competitors are models each of which is capable of explaining the experimental data, but perhaps with more or less elegance or simplicity or comprehensiveness, or with some other preferred combination of the explanatory virtues, of which simple faithfulness to the facts is only one.

How does your comment relate to my prior comment? What is it in my statement that leads you to make this comment?

 

[john_doran]

vern humphrey:

The people you’re speaking of are not those who advance evolution. Science was under attack by non-scientists, not the other way 'round.

i am speaking of anyone who rejects an idea based on non-scientific grounds, such as its not having the correct intellectual pedigree. and “scientists” are just as capable (and guilty) of that sort of behaviour as anyone else.
vern humphrey:

How does your comment relate to my prior comment? What is it in my statement that leads you to make this comment?

you characterized the scientific endeavour - at least in the instant case - as a skeptical one that simply sifts hypotheses with no supporting evidence. and that’s just not what science is, or is only to some vanishingly small degree.

 

[vern_humphrey]

john doran:

i am speaking of anyone who rejects an idea based on non-scientific grounds, such as its not having the correct intellectual pedigree. and “scientists” are just as capable (and guilty) of that sort of behaviour as anyone else.

That open-ended charge is often made, but never substantiated. Scientists, like everyone else, are human and have human flaws, but the scientific community has not behaved as you claim.
john doran:

you characterized the scientific endeavour - at least in the instant case - as a skeptical one that simply sifts hypotheses with no supporting evidence. and that’s just not what science is, or is only to some vanishingly small degree.

Let me post the comment in question again:
Vern Humphrey:

Science at its core is scepticism – it rejects that for which there is no evidence. That is the coin of science. Do you expect us to believe EVERYTHING anyone proposes, without any evidence at all?

**
Exactly where in the quoted section do I say, "the scientific endeavour - at least in the instant case - is a skeptical one that simply sifts hypotheses with no supporting evidence.?"
**
In fact, I said exactly the opposite – I said “Science at its core is scepticism – it rejects that for which there is no evidence.”*

 

[jdnation]

Vern>So you figure there’s maybe a living T-Rex in the City Park that no one has discovered?

No, simply wondering how mere extinction proves evolution. The part about finding ‘living fossils’ I threw in merely to mention it.

Vern>Like what?

Well I’d have to link you to AiG or some creationist site for more of the details. But y’know… if you ever decide to look at them you’ll find all the details there, hey you might even find something to refute and write to them about it!

Vern>How about environmental pressure?

And how does this solve the probability problem?

Vern>The issue is species change through switching on and off genes in the long DNA chain. You made a big thing about how switching off makes the organism less complex, but failed to mention switching genes on.

Clearly I did… “As for the turning on/off gene scenario, turning off genes will stop growth of some areas of the body. But this by itself won’t produce something else, it’s only off. Which leaves turning on something new to create new organs or whatever. Which means that all such information should be there from the beginning of the organism’s creation.”

Vern>And you did it as if all scientists were clones of Darwin.

Sorry if i made it sound that way, seems I did. However it isn’t unusual for scientists to automatically dismiss the ‘supernatural.’ The scientific method is based on using natural methods of course to measure and test etc. so natural science cannot be used to study what is supernatural. Since Genesis creation is supernatural, it is a priori dismissed by many who prefer the natural approach. It is not unresonable to believe in evolution, creationists make the claim that there is nothing to controvert Genesis Creation. The whole struggle between the two camps, evolutionists and creationists trying to refute each other is just the same as two opposing religions who try to come out on top. And inbetween the two camps at their extremeties, atheistic naturalism, and biblical creationism, are the theistic-evolutionists, as yourself and ID’ers, holding varying positions on what it the most correct idea about the origin of life.

Vern>There is no resolution – that’s what makes it an oddball. Scroll up and you will find a discussion about the purported “mathematical” issue in ID and its lack of substance.

I’m supposing you’re referring to battddy’s dialogue on chance. The whole chance issue doesn’t lack substance. Whether one accepts it or not is purely a gamble, a guess. As he himself says, “But religiously, is it acceptable to believe there really is chance? I dont know…I dont think so.” He accepts the idea that the chance is probable over billions of years, but he correctly says he doesn’t know. To decide whether it’s possible or not is purely faith.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jdnation:

No, simply wondering how mere extinction proves evolution. The part about finding ‘living fossils’ I threw in merely to mention it…

I hate to say it, but that’s a typical dodge – you don’t address both sides of the equation. One side is that many fossil plants and animals are no longer to be found on earth. The other side is that many living plants and animals are not found in the fossil record.

This clearly shows that the life forms have “turned over” – one set replacing an earlier set. And this has happened more than once.

jdnation:

Well I’d have to link you to AiG or some creationist site for more of the details. But y’know… if you ever decide to look at them you’ll find all the details there, hey you might even find something to refute and write to them about it!..

I have been to those sites, read the books, and so on. What they lack is hard evidence.

jdnation:

And how does this solve the probability problem?.

By introducing causality, of course!

No scientist I know of claims evolution is a random process – they all maintain it is a cause-and-effect process.

jdnation:

Clearly I did… “As for the turning on/off gene scenario, turning off genes will stop growth of some areas of the body. But this by itself won’t produce something else, it’s only off. Which leaves turning on something new to create new organs or whatever. Which means that all such information should be there from the beginning of the organism’s creation.”

Which brings down the idea that somehow information is LOST in evolution.

jdnation:

Sorry if i made it sound that way, seems I did. However it isn’t unusual for scientists to automatically dismiss the ‘supernatural.’

Just as creation “scientists” automatically dismiss the scientific.

jdnation:

The scientific method is based on using natural methods of course to measure and test etc. so natural science cannot be used to study what is supernatural.

That’s right – and scientists’ admission that science is unable to study the supernatural is then used as evidence that science is somehow atheistic!

jdnation:

Since Genesis creation is supernatural,
it is a priori dismissed by many who prefer the natural approach. .

No. The account in Genesis was long accepted until overwhelming evidence accumulated to refute a literal interpretation of that account.

jdnation:

It is not unresonable to believe in evolution, creationists make the claim that there is nothing to controvert Genesis Creation. .

Until you start claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old, the creation occurred in six 24-hour days, and all species were created at the same time.

jdnation:

The whole struggle between the two camps, evolutionists and creationists trying to refute each other is just the same as two opposing religions who try to come out on top. .

No. Science is NOT a religion, and to try to paint it as one is simply dishonest.

jdnation:

I’m supposing you’re referring to battddy’s dialogue on chance. The whole chance issue doesn’t lack substance. Whether one accepts it or not is purely a gamble, a guess. As he himself says, “But religiously, is it acceptable to believe there really is chance? I dont know…I dont think so.” He accepts the idea that the chance is probable over billions of years, but he correctly says he doesn’t know. To decide whether it’s possible or not is purely faith.

He pretends to have something of substance, and fails to produce. The issue of “chance” is bogus, since no scientist I know of rejects cause-and-effect in evolution.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

Just as creation “scientists” automatically dismiss the scientific.

Creation scientists do not automatically dismiss the scientific.They fully understand that science is part of truth. They just don’t agree with science that conflicts with it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Creation scientists do not automatically dismiss the scientific.They fully understand that science is part of truth. They just don’t agree with science that conflicts with it.

And that is different from automatically dismissing the science, how?

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

And that is different from automatically dismissing the science, how?

C’mon Vern. Scientists in this particular debate are filling in the gaps of the record with their worldview. Just as the creationists are.