What should I think about Intelligent Design?

[Ion]

There are lots of animals with useless body parts (we call them “vestigial” because they are vestiges of evolutionary history). Not just the human appendix but the human tailbone, for instance, does not really serve a purpose (although it serves a purpose for other species with tails).
…

They are called only, “vestigial”. Adaptation, yep, thats proven. But the article suggests some “additional” parts.

Some consider the coccyx/tailbone a vestigial bone, but I’v never seen a scenario in which the bone grows back into a tail…

 

[tonyrey]

Unless any Catholic is not willing to argue that God is an intelligent designer, the argument is eminently reasonable. Even Isaac Newton thought so, and he was not Catholic…

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

To reject Design implies that God doesn’t exist or doesn’t know what He is doing and couldn’t care less about what happens in the universe, let alone what happens on this minute planet!

 

[Al_Moritz]

There are lots of animals with useless body parts (we call them “vestigial” because they are vestiges of evolutionary history). Not just the human appendix but the human tailbone, for instance, does not really serve a purpose (although it serves a purpose for other species with tails).

A common fallacy is that evolution begets “perfect” organisms (or that evolution is a process which will forever continue to “improve” organisms). This is true to a very limited extent - but it’s also relevant that evolution has to work with adapting what it has, which means you wind up with tailbones that do nothing. The relevant sections of DNA are not easily removed by mutation, but over time, because having a useless tail requires more energy and resources, organisms with smaller tails succeed more. So we have a reduced tailbone but not no tailbone. Likewise we have a small appendix that pretty much does nothing - it only causes a problem when you get appendicitis or something. But no one in the population has no appendix, so we are not evolving towards having no appendix - there is nothing in the gene pool that would move us in that direction.

The human skeleton is not even perfect. There are a lot of problems with it, and one could easily design a skeleton that withstands stress better. But reaching one of those better designs would require such an “overhaul” to genetic code that it couldn’t happen… because evolutionary change occurs gradually, one mutation at a time, and the intermediary phenotypes would not be better than the current phenotype. Now, this does not undermine human’s nature of being created in God’s image because we were not made to have a perfect skeleton.

Excellent explanation.

Evolution indeed does not make us perfect, because it cannot. Yet in the sense that it achieves what it is supposed to, you could call it a ‘perfect’ process. That is why I find the argument from Unintelligent Design, brought forth by atheists, unconvincing as argument against the existence of God. It is only convincing in the sense that it shows how absurd it is to assume that God constantly tinkers with the process that He created – it is great as an argument against constant biological so-called ‘Intelligent Design’ (what this thread is about, I suppose).

Our DNA is indeed littered with dead and broken remnants. Why are we dependent on vitamin C and other animals aren’t? Because our gene for vitamin C synthesis, even though existing, is broken. It turned out not be necessary to provide an advantage at the time, so its function could be lost.

 

[InJesusItrust]

You have to be pretty brave to be a fool for Christ. It is easier to be a wise man for Christ.

 

[rossum]

“I” being a faithful Catholic with an engineering degree, who sees absolutely no conflict between true faith, true science and true reason. So what should I think about Intelligent Design, and why?

There are at least two possible meanings to “Intelligent Design”. The first is common to all the Abrahamic religions: God is intelligent and God made the entire universe, hence the entire universe is intelligently designed.

The second meaning is a pseudo-scientific politically motivated effort to get Creationism taught as science in American schools. It is an attempt to replace God with an unspecified designer so as not to make it too obviously religious. See “cdesign proponentsists” for the sort of things they are trying to push.

The first type of ID is unexceptional, and many scientists accept it. Ken Miller and Francis Collins for example.

The second type of ID is not science and has minimal support among scientists. It is more political and social than science.

rossum

 

[jonathan_hili]

While ID is pretty sensible philosophy, I’m not sure what scientific benefit it will really provide. I’d certainly promote it as a philosophical approach to science, but not as an aspect of the scientific method generally.

 

[Aaron_Creagh]

Deep belief in many scientific laws, can conflict with faith.

Intelligent Design is what I’ve always believed, but I’m not Catholic.

 

[RPRPsych]

Wasn’t there a moratorium on these kinds of threads?

Anyway. Countdown to the first mention of IDvolution: 10, 9, 8, 7…

And my :twocents: - Frankly, as someone who’s halfway between “old-earth intelligent-design creationist” and “theistic evolution” (as per, say, Francis S. Collins) myself, I see the merit in both positions. Intelligent design is a perfectly acceptable position to hold for a Catholic.

 

[Ismael]

Ed

** From the back cover: “Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information.”**

Too obviously designed to be an accident!

I do not know if the statement you reported is even correct.

I would not see a cell as a supercomputer, even if it does share SOME characteristics with computer technology.

Anyway the problem with ID is that it is always at odds with science. According to the Church you are free to believe what you want regarding evolution, ID, etc… but I think ID is not a solution to anything. It’s bad science AND bad philosophy AND bad theology.

 

[Ion]

As I understood, Intelligent design on trial, was the effort of the Evangelical church only, and there was no plan put toghether by members of different churches/religions to implement it.
They tried to make it look good from any religion, but my feeling is that there is no interest in it, if the specific view of a religion is not clearly stated.
Also we do not know how exactly the Antichrist will act on this issue, and ID might make his tricks look plausible and christians might easier fall for it. But anyway, he’s going to trick the scientific communion, because all he’s going to need is a theory, and we are foretold that only real christians will be able to stand it.

 

[Al_Moritz]

There are at least two possible meanings to “Intelligent Design”. The first is common to all the Abrahamic religions: God is intelligent and God made the entire universe, hence the entire universe is intelligently designed.

The second meaning is a pseudo-scientific politically motivated effort to get Creationism taught as science in American schools. It is an attempt to replace God with an unspecified designer so as not to make it too obviously religious. See “cdesign proponentsists” for the sort of things they are trying to push.

The first type of ID is unexceptional, and many scientists accept it. Ken Miller and Francis Collins for example.

The second type of ID is not science and has minimal support among scientists. It is more political and social than science.

rossum

 

[jonathan_hili]

I agree, in that Intelligent Design really isn’t science. Science is a method of experimentation on natural material substances, and, as such ID really can’t progress any of the scientific disciplines. I think, however, the philosophy behind it is very valid, in that, there are certainly aspects of our universe that appear to be designed.

Should this be taught in scientific textbooks? As a philosophical idea, perhaps, but not as scientific method (nor more, indeed, than Darwinian naturalism should be taught - although it does seem to be smuggled in from time to time).

 

[dshix]

I agree, in that Intelligent Design really isn’t science. Science is a method of experimentation on natural material substances, and, as such ID really can’t progress any of the scientific disciplines. I think, however, the philosophy behind it is very valid, in that, there are certainly aspects of our universe that appear to be designed.

Well, if you narrow it down to that, then evolution isn’t science either. In fact, there’s even less evidence for evolution than there is for ID.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Well, if you narrow it down to that, then evolution isn’t science either. In fact, there’s even less evidence for evolution than there is for ID.

“Evolution” is a theory, but a scientific one, in that, it could potentially be tested by the scientific method. However, Intelligent Design can’t be tested, which makes it poor science.

I’m not saying it’s not valid, but as philosophy, not science.

 

[grannymh]

In my humble opinion, the real battle in Catholicism is over human origin and human nature.:sad_yes:

 

[grannymh]

I do not know if the statement you reported is even correct.

I would not see a cell as a supercomputer, even if it does share SOME characteristics with computer technology.

Anyway the problem with ID is that it is always at odds with science. According to the Church you are free to believe what you want regarding evolution, ID, etc… but I think ID is not a solution to anything. It’s bad science AND bad philosophy AND bad theology.

Pardon me. Which Church are you referring to?

This may come as a surprise to a lot of people.

The Catholic Deposit of Faith is very clear about its teachings on human origin and human nature, which, by the way, soundly conflict with current natural science theories on the same subjects. Catholics are not free to chose today’s evolution model regarding the human anatomy without the immortal spiritual soul.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“I” being a faithful Catholic with an engineering degree, who sees absolutely no conflict between true faith, true science and true reason. So what should I think about Intelligent Design, and why?

Intelligent Design is nothing but the unfolding of God’s government of the universe he created and his providential care in its regard. This is seen in paragraphs 302 - 308 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It can be summarized by the quote from Vatican 1 found in paragraph 302 : " By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures. "

This in no way excludes an evolutionary unfolding of the universe, with the exception of the human soul and angels, which are created immediately by God without secondary causality.

So Intelligent Design is nothing but God’s intimate government and providence in nature, guiding all things to the completion of their proper ends. Evolution in no way excludes Intelligent Design but requires it. Linus2nd

 

[clem456]

There are lots of animals with useless body parts (we call them “vestigial” because they are vestiges of evolutionary history). Not just the human appendix but the human tailbone, for instance, does not really serve a purpose (although it serves a purpose for other species with tails).

A common fallacy is that evolution begets “perfect” organisms (or that evolution is a process which will forever continue to “improve” organisms). This is true to a very limited extent - but it’s also relevant that evolution has to work with adapting what it has, which means you wind up with tailbones that do nothing. The relevant sections of DNA are not easily removed by mutation, but over time, because having a useless tail requires more energy and resources, organisms with smaller tails succeed more. So we have a reduced tailbone but not no tailbone. Likewise we have a small appendix that pretty much does nothing - it only causes a problem when you get appendicitis or something. But no one in the population has no appendix, so we are not evolving towards having no appendix - there is nothing in the gene pool that would move us in that direction.

The human skeleton is not even perfect. There are a lot of problems with it, and one could easily design a skeleton that withstands stress better. But reaching one of those better designs would require such an “overhaul” to genetic code that it couldn’t happen… because evolutionary change occurs gradually, one mutation at a time, and the intermediary phenotypes would not be better than the current phenotype. Now, this does not undermine human’s nature of being created in God’s image because we were not made to have a perfect skeleton.

Good stuff. Evolution to perfection is kind of absurd. If we evolved to the perfect, what would we be in need of? It simply can’t be that way, the evidence surrounds us. A perfect human would need no food or medicine, or companionship, or God for that matter. Assuming there is a God, would He allow us to become perfect without coming to union with Him?

People seem to think that randomness (mutations etc) are incompatible with intelligent design. Why? Randomness seems to be a good expression of the fact that God is unknowable.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Pardon me. Which Church are you referring to?

This may come as a surprise to a lot of people.

The Catholic Deposit of Faith is very clear about its teachings on human origin and human nature, which, by the way, soundly conflict with current natural science theories on the same subjects. Catholics should not do their own thing when it comes to today’s evolution model regarding the decomposing anatomy without the spiritual soul.

Thank you. Apparantly a lot of Catholics have not read their Catechism. And some are skating right on the edge and should exercise more discression with their statements.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

Intelligent Design is nothing but the unfolding of God’s government of the universe he created and his providential care in its regard. This is seen in paragraphs 302 - 308 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It can be summarized by the quote from Vatican 1 found in paragraph 302 : " By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures. "

This in no way excludes an evolutionary unfolding of the universe, with the exception of the human soul and angels, which are created immediately by God without secondary causality.

So Intelligent Design is nothing but God’s intimate government and providence in nature, guiding all things to the completion of their proper ends. Evolution in no way excludes Intelligent Design but requires it. Linus2nd

Except where fundamentalists are concerned!