Where does the evidence lead?

[cranster]

I don’t know if anyone has seen this? It’s a six part series on you tube. It has some very compelling arguments for ID. I highly recommend watching it if you haven’t seen it before.

 

[1WATCHER]

I don’t know if anyone has seen this? It’s a six part series on you tube. It has some very compelling arguments for ID. I highly recommend watching it if you haven’t seen it before.

Odd?.. that one would need find a secular mini series of thoughts that would try to (name removed by moderator)ose something other than theory of science or openended thoughts that followers of God the Son and Holy Ghost that would need an explantion of earths created creatures or the attempted answers were we from monkeys/apes.

I am new to this fourm here on catholic answers and what was I expecting? Maybe greater things from posters on this site but…What have I seen by many looking to disprove, or lead away those only to believe in ones self or that maybe seeking to be a activist in at the very least causing doubt. While many who truly seek only encouragement to open up a greater Spiritual life.

Intelligent design while interesting as it is, I just do not understand its place on in bringing one to a greater life with God on a catholic/christian site. It doesn’t envoke a more prayful life or greater awareness that God is always loves you and desires you to be his now and forever. I expect an flurry or replys to my posting and should I be asked to leave by the MOD’S …I will comply! …and not post here on the fourms but it truly is unbelieveable and saddens me all the things of negative and disrespectful inclination of those posters that post only to attempt to disprove Gods greatness.

I guess I am looking for like minded catholics and christians who post here to help me develope into a more joyful, peaceful, loving, forgiving nature, and better reflection of the Lord I follow.

Dan aka 1WATCHER

 

[Schn]

Do they have ‘evidence’ other than ‘irreducible complexity’?

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi Schn,

Schn:

Do they have ‘evidence’ other than ‘irreducible complexity’?

Most traditional teleological arguments (e.g. that of Thomas Aquinas) appeal to the regularities observed in the laws of nature. This would be consistent with evolutionary theory. The same applies to the universe’s initial fine-tuning. So, even if the arguments from irreducible complexity fail, we still have a lot more to consider.

 

[Schn]

Hi Schn,

Most traditional teleological arguments (e.g. that of Thomas Aquinas) appeal to the regularities observed in the laws of nature. This would be consistent with evolutionary theory. The same applies to the universe’s initial fine-tuning. So, even if the arguments from irreducible complexity fail, we still have a lot more to consider.

So the regularities involved in nature are irreducibly complex? Isn’t that the same thing.

 

[punkforchrist]

So the regularities involved in nature are irreducibly complex? Isn’t that the same thing.

Not exactly. “Irreducible complexity” refers to the cell of a living organism. If there truly is irreducible complexity, then that would point to a Designer. Let’s assume that this argument fails, though.

We can instead look at other things in nature that point to design as the best explanation. The regularities of the laws of nature may or may not have irreducible complexity of another, non-biological, sort. That just isn’t a term that’s used very often apart from the context of biology. One way of putting the argument is like this:

1. Whatever a) lacks intelligence, and b) acts always, or for the most part, for a certain end, has a designer.
2. The laws of nature a) lack intelligence, and b) act always, or for the most part, for a certain end.
3. Therefore, the laws of nature have a designer.

I take it that (2) is uncontroversial, but let me know if you have any reservations. In support of (1), let’s take a look at the example Thomas Aquinas gives. An arrow only hits its mark because of the intelligence of the archer. We can infer that the arrow hit its mark by some intelligence because it meets the criteria of (1).

Notice, though, that this argument is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, and specifically, natural selection among biological organisms.

Make sense?

 

[Schn]

Not exactly. “Irreducible complexity” refers to the cell of a living organism. If there truly is irreducible complexity, then that would point to a Designer. Let’s assume that this argument fails, though.

We can instead look at other things in nature that point to design as the best explanation. The regularities of the laws of nature may or may not have irreducible complexity of another, non-biological, sort. That just isn’t a term that’s used very often apart from the context of biology. One way of putting the argument is like this:

1. Whatever a) lacks intelligence, and b) acts always, or for the most part, for a certain end, has a designer.
2. The laws of nature a) lack intelligence, and b) act always, or for the most part, for a certain end.
3. Therefore, the laws of nature have a designer.

I take it that (2) is uncontroversial, but let me know if you have any reservations. In support of (1), let’s take a look at the example Thomas Aquinas gives. An arrow only hits its mark because of the intelligence of the archer. We can infer that the arrow hit its mark by some intelligence because it meets the criteria of (1).

Notice, though, that this argument is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, and specifically, natural selection among biological organisms.

Make sense?

What if it always acts for it’s own ends? Does that make them designed? Also if I shoot a million arrows I’m pretty sure one hits the target dead on. Is that intelligence?

 

[punkforchrist]

What if it always acts for it’s own ends? Does that make them designed?

Well, if something acts for its own ends (e.g. a human being), then it would itself be an intelligence. Is this what you had in mind, or something else?

Also if I shoot a million arrows I’m pretty sure one hits the target dead on. Is that intelligence?

You have pointed out an important element, here. You can indeed shoot a million arrows, and chances are that you will probably hit the target a few times. However, the laws of nature don’t fail to “hit the mark,” as it were, most of the time, only to work as we know they do a few times. The proper analogy, I think, would be to say that you shoot a million arrows and most, if not all of them, hit the target. And if that’s the case, we can infer intelligence.

 

[cranster]

What if it always acts for it’s own ends? Does that make them designed? Also if I shoot a million arrows I’m pretty sure one hits the target dead on. Is that intelligence?

Shooting a million arrows and one hitting the mark isn’t even in the same ball park as the complexity of the first cell.

 

[Schn]

Well, if something acts for its own ends (e.g. a human being), then it would itself be an intelligence. Is this what you had in mind, or something else?

Ok so you admit then that design isn’t required for evolution, where everything acts for its own ends.

You have pointed out an important element, here. You can indeed shoot a million arrows, and chances are that you will probably hit the target a few times. However, the laws of nature don’t fail to “hit the mark,” as it were, most of the time, only to work as we know they do a few times. The proper analogy, I think, would be to say that you shoot a million arrows and most, if not all of them, hit the target. And if that’s the case, we can infer intelligence.

But what is the target. If you define the target as how things are now, well, you just defined the criteria for intelligence, your conclusion isn’t surprising.

 

[cranster]

Well, if something acts for its own ends (e.g. a human being), then it would itself be an intelligence. Is this what you had in mind, or something else?

You have pointed out an important element, here. You can indeed shoot a million arrows, and chances are that you will probably hit the target a few times. However, the laws of nature don’t fail to “hit the mark,” as it were, most of the time, only to work as we know they do a few times. The proper analogy, I think, would be to say that you shoot a million arrows and most, if not all of them, hit the target. And if that’s the case, we can infer intelligence.

I think you are right on. Not only each hitting a target but a specific target that only each arrow is intended to hit. That is if you want to be analogous to the formation of the first cell. There’s no reason to think that partially formed strands of proteins are going to endure until molecules could randomly form the amino acids in the proper sequence to form the rest of the protein over time. Especially with the not yet essential dna present within that cell to tell the amino acids how to correctly organize themselves both sequentially and geometrically to properly form the protein. All of the elements necessary in that first cell had to come together at the same time within the lifespan of that cell. Amino acids can’t arrange themselves in to proteins without the genetic instructions from dna, so dna had to have randomly been formed at the same time as amino acids and proteins since you can’t have dna without proteins. All elements had to come together at once in that first cell before natural selection could begin its process. So in the circumstance of the first cell what came first the chicken or the egg. Neither… they both had to come together at the same time within the same organism.

 

[punkforchrist]

Ok so you admit then that design isn’t required for evolution, where everything acts for its own ends.

Please bear with me, but I’m really not sure what you mean by “acts for their own ends.” A thing acts for its own ends if it has a purpose, and purpose is something that is derived from personal agents. Natural selection isn’t something personal, unless you believe that some intelligence is guiding the process. That’s what I believe.

But what is the target. If you define the target as how things are now, well, you just defined the criteria for intelligence, your conclusion isn’t surprising.

A target can be inferred whenever something is done consistently. For example, Newton’s law of universal gravitation is this: Fg = G (m1*m2)/(d^2). Given that physical bodies regularly conform to this equation, it makes sense to say that the value of Fg is a “target.” If this were to change, then of course we would have to revise our views.

 

[Schn]

Please bear with me, but I’m really not sure what you mean by “acts for their own ends.” A thing acts for its own ends if it has a purpose, and purpose is something that is derived from personal agents. Natural selection isn’t something personal, unless you believe that some intelligence is guiding the process. That’s what I believe.

Oh so you’re one of the ones that accept evolution. That’s nice.

A target can be inferred whenever something is done consistently. For example, Newton’s law of universal gravitation is this: Fg = G (m1*m2)/(d^2). Given that physical bodies regularly conform to this equation, it makes sense to say that the value of Fg is a “target.” If this were to change, then of course we would have to revise our views.

You’ve just defined every natural law as intelligent. Why does something happening in the same way make it designed.

 

[punkforchrist]

Schn:

You’ve just defined every natural law as intelligent.

I wouldn’t say the laws themselves are intelligent, but that they are designed by some intelligence. In the analogy, the Designer is like the archer, the laws of nature like the arrow, and the functions of those laws the target.

Why does something happening in the same way make it designed.

It’s a reasonable inference to make about anything that has regularity. That’s why I offered the archery analogy.

 

[Schn]

It’s a reasonable inference to make about anything that has regularity. That’s why I offered the archery analogy.

So if regularity is a sign of intelligence, whoever designed the interior of the human body is clearly a moron.

 

[punkforchrist]

The part of the argument I’m addressing doesn’t concern biology, but just the laws of nature.

Nevertheless, we think of ourselves as intelligent creatures. We are capable of making things like computers. But, the human brain and human circulatory system are astronomically more complex than a computer. I’d say whoever designed the human anatomy is exceedingly intelligent.

 

[Schn]

The part of the argument I’m addressing doesn’t concern biology, but just the laws of nature.

Nevertheless, we think of ourselves as intelligent creatures. We are capable of making things like computers. But, the human brain and human circulatory system are astronomically more complex than a computer. I’d say whoever designed the human anatomy is exceedingly intelligent.

But the designer doesn’t need to be designed. Special pleading.

 

[punkforchrist]

Special pleading would be like this: “The Designer of the laws of nature both lacks intelligence and acts for a certain end. But, the Designer isn’t designed.” Of course, the Designer is intelligent, so it doesn’t meet the criteria necessary to infer that the Designer is designed. So, this is what we have:

Design inference = lacking intelligence and acting for a certain end.
Laws of nature = lacking intelligence and acting for a certain end.
Designer of laws of nature = possessing intelligence, but acting for a certain end.

Notice that the Designer, while acting for a certain end, does not meet both criteria of the “design inference,” whereas the laws of nature do.

Moreover, in order for an explanation to be best, we don’t have to have an explanation of the explanation. If we discovered pottery on the dark side of the moon, we wouldn’t have to know who designed it or whether the intelligence that put it there is designed in order to know that the pottery itself is designed.

 

[Schn]

Special pleading would be like this: “The Designer of the laws of nature both lacks intelligence and acts for a certain end. But, the Designer isn’t designed.” Of course, the Designer is intelligent, so it doesn’t meet the criteria necessary to infer that the Designer is designed. So, this is what we have:

Design inference = lacking intelligence and acting for a certain end.
Laws of nature = lacking intelligence and acting for a certain end.
Designer of laws of nature = possessing intelligence, but acting for a certain end.

Notice that the Designer, while acting for a certain end, does not meet both criteria of the “design inference,” whereas the laws of nature do.

Moreover, in order for an explanation to be best, we don’t have to have an explanation of the explanation. If we discovered pottery on the dark side of the moon, we wouldn’t have to know who designed it or whether the intelligence that put it there is designed in order to know that the pottery itself is designed.

I possess intelligence and act for my own ends. Therefore I do not need to be designed. Seeing as god is mainly an explanation for why we are here, you may want to rethink your criteria for needing design.

 

[tonyrey]

I possess intelligence and act for my own ends. Therefore I do not need to be designed.

So you either designed yourself or you’re an accident…

**Seeing as god is mainly an explanation for why we are here, you may want to rethink your criteria for needing design.**God is not “mainly an explanation for why we are here” but the **only ** adequate explanation…