Powerful evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

A completely new dimension of reality is opened up by the view that the universe is the product of Design. It implies that purpose is not a rare phenomenon but fundamental and widespread. Even inanimate objects are valuable and significant because without them life would be impossible. This is where science is entirely uninformative and insignificant because it tells us nothing about the reasons for our existence. To leave people with the impression that science explains everything is to leave them with no authentic purpose at all. It doesn't tell us how we should behave towards others or even towards ourselves. It doesn't distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust. In other words it leads to a dead end....

One of the saddest features of contemporary society is its loss of moral values and the pursuit of pleasure rather than perfection. A typical secular interpretation of life is given by Clarence Darrow:

All we know is that we were born on this little grain of sand which we call the earth. We know that it is one of the smallest bits of matter that floats in the great shoreless sea of space and we have every reason to believe that it is as inconsequential in every other respect... we are like a body of shipwrecked sailors clutching to a raft and desperately engaged in holding on.... The best that we can do is to be kindly and helpful towards our friends and fellow passengers clinging to the same speck of dirt while we are drifting side by side to our common doom.

- A Modern Introduction to Philosophy - edited by Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap, p. 453.

Science is based on the principle that there are explanations for everything - even though they may not be of the type we expect. Science is inadequate because it excludes explanations in terms of purpose which are the basis of a rational existence. We all have to work out our own way of life and decide what is more important than anything else. Even if we don't believe in Design we know it is absurd to live as if we have no reasons for living. So in practice we live as if we don't exist by Chance.

Design implies that we all have a specific vocation and an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability. We have a definite incentive to persevere in the quest for truth and meaning, inspired by the thought that everything will ultimately fit into an intelligible pattern. In other words we are sustained by faith, hope and love because we don't regard others as accidental companions with whom we have nothing in common and towards whom we have no obligations.

As we get older and infirm it becomes difficult not to regard our efforts and sufferings as pointless, especially if we think everything is going to be swallowed up in total oblivion. Suicide is often thought to be a solution but it causes problems for others and certainly undermines belief in virtues like courage and fortitude because it implies we are useless and of no value to anyone. It is the thin end of the wedge to base life on how useful we think we are to others. According to that criterion euthanasia is justified for a fair proportion of the population! Even when he was blind Milton did not yield to that temptation:

"He also serves who only stands and waits..."

The most convincing evidence for Design is the richness of personal existence with all its opportunities for exploration, creativity, appreciation and enjoyment - like art, music, drama, literature, history, science, technology and - of course - philosophy. This is not to mention the happiness to be found in family life, friendship, travel and even work - but it is the spiritual life that must surpass everything else because it is our greatest source of inspiration. Many people today cannot understand how monks and nuns can be happy and fulfilled when they are isolated from all that gives others their reasons for living. Yet their closeness to God is the greatest source of joy and peace anyone can have. Just to read what the saints and mystics of different religions - and even no religion - have written about their experiences is to glimpse a higher level of existence.

"By their fruits you shall know them..."

It is the fertility of Design that makes it far superior to its rival.

[tonyrey]

On rereading my post I thought it was a pity not to quote Milton's sonnet in full:

When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?
"I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait."

[tonyrey]

I should have put the title of the sonnet: "On his blindness" - which explains why he asks whether he should be expected to do something useful when he is plunged into permanent darkness. He later wrote poignantly:

"I shall be at once the weakest and the strongest, at the same time blind and most keen in vision. By this infirmity may I be perfected, by this completed Divine law and divine favor have rendered us not only safe from the injuries of men, but almost sacred, nor do these shadows around us seem to have been created so much by the dullness of our eyes as by the shade of angels wings. And divine favor not infrequently is wont to lighten these shadows again, once made, by an inner and far more enduring light."

He wrote his greatest work after that: Paradise Lost....

[prodigalson2011]

Wise as ever, Tonyrey.

Thanks.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

Wise as ever, Tonyrey.

Thanks.

If I have any wisdom it is due to my God-given power of reason - and frequent preservation from danger - but daily experience reminds me I'm still capable of folly!

[rossum]

Originally Posted by buffalo

This rapid ability to produce variation is in agreement with IDvolution.

The rapid ability to produce variation is also in agreement with evolution, see Punctuated Equilibrium. During a Punctuation change is rapid.

What you need is to describe something that IDvolution predicts, that evolution does not. And then show us that the IDvolution prediction is correct, while the evolutionary prediction is not.

Merely predicting the same things as evolution will not help you. You need to predict something different and then show that you are correct.

In many cases Newton and Einstein predicted the same thing. Scientists could only test one against the other when they predicted different things.

rossum

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by rossum

The rapid ability to produce variation is also in agreement with evolution, see Punctuated Equilibrium. During a Punctuation change is rapid.

What you need is to describe something that IDvolution predicts, that evolution does not. And then show us that the IDvolution prediction is correct, while the evolutionary prediction is not.

Merely predicting the same things as evolution will not help you. You need to predict something different and then show that you are correct.

In many cases Newton and Einstein predicted the same thing. Scientists could only test one against the other when they predicted different things.

rossum

Design predicts:

1. The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant

2. Personal activity will never be entirely explained by science

3. Persons will always be responsible for their behaviour unless there are mitigating circumstances

4. There will never be mitigating circumstances for all human behaviour

5. The power of reason will never be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence

6. Purposeful activity will always be considered superior to purposeless activity

7. Buddhism will always be considered superior to materialism!

[inocente]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

2. Personal activity will never be entirely explained by science

3. Persons will always be responsible for their behaviour unless there are mitigating circumstances

4. There will never be mitigating circumstances for all human behaviour

Just on that, modern science has shown more than once (quantum mechanics, chaos theory, complexity theory) that there are absolute limits to our knowledge and ability to predict the future, which means that the philosophy of determinism is false (they can't pretend the world is deterministic when they know that even in principle they can’t determine outcomes).

So it isn't just your Design argument which predicts free will, science would too if free will wasn't largely a moral construct outside its domain.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by inocente

Just on that, modern science has shown more than once (quantum mechanics, chaos theory, complexity theory) that there are absolute limits to our knowledge and ability to predict the future, which means that the philosophy of determinism is false (they can't pretend the world is deterministic when they know that even in principle they can’t determine outcomes).

So it isn't just your Design argument which predicts free will, science would too if free will wasn't largely a moral construct outside its domain.

In that case science supports Design if free will isn't entirely a moral construct.

[rossum]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Design predicts:

1. The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant

How does this derive from design? Is the designer incapable of changing its design, once done? That would exclude certain omnipotent entities from the role of designer. Many designers come up with a version 2 of their design, what is special about your proposed designer that is is incapable of producing a modified version?

Science also says that the fundamental laws of nature remain constant, so this is not a valid test. Science makes the same prediction.

2. Personal activity will never be entirely explained by science

How can this be tested in less then infinite time? This is a test, but it is not practical.

3. Persons will always be responsible for their behaviour unless there are mitigating circumstances

This is outside the realm of science, and so not relevant.

4. There will never be mitigating circumstances for all human behaviour

This is outside the realm of science, and so not relevant.

5. The power of reason will never be surpassed and replaced by artificial intelligence

How can this be tested in less then infinite time? This is a test, but it is not practical.

6. Purposeful activity will always be considered superior to purposeless activity

By whom? Who makes the "considered" judgement?

7. Buddhism will always be considered superior to materialism!

Your prediction fails. I suspect that Richard Dawkins considers materialism superior to Buddhism. Thus your "always" fails. A design prediction has been disproven.

rossum

[inocente]

Originally Posted by rossum

How does this derive from design? Is the designer incapable of changing its design, once done? That would exclude certain omnipotent entities from the role of designer. Many designers come up with a version 2 of their design, what is special about your proposed designer that is is incapable of producing a modified version?

Science also says that the fundamental laws of nature remain constant, so this is not a valid test. Science makes the same prediction.

Yes indeed - hard hat area, beware collapsing arguments!

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by inocente

Yes indeed - hard hat area, beware collapsing arguments!

Hard hats are removable. Hard heads are immovable.

[inocente]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Hard hats are removable. Hard heads are immovable.

Correct. Jesus was rightly immovable and not at all soft headed. Well spotted.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by rossum

How does this derive from design? Is the designer incapable of changing its design, once done? That would exclude certain omnipotent entities from the role of designer. Many designers come up with a version 2 of their design, what is special about your proposed designer that is is incapable of producing a modified version?

The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant because the purpose of Design is to sustain life and a rational existence.

Science also says that the fundamental laws of nature remain constant, so this is not a valid test. Science makes the same prediction.

All scientific propositions are provisional and subject to revision in the light of further evidence whereas Design is not.

How can this be tested in less then infinite time? This is a test, but it is not practical.

In that case many neuroscientists are already demonstrating their impracticality!

This is outside the realm of science, and so not relevant.

Is everything outside the realm of science irrelevant to the interpretation of reality?!

This is outside the realm of science, and so not relevant.

Is everything outside the realm of science irrelevant to the interpretation of reality?!

How can this be tested in less then infinite time? This is a test, but it is not practical.

In that case many AI scientists are already demonstrating their impracticality!

By whom? Who makes the "considered" judgement?

All rational beings!

Your prediction fails. I suspect that Richard Dawkins considers materialism superior to Buddhism. Thus your "always" fails. A design prediction has been disproven.

Hardly - unless your faith in Buddhism is waning! That statement was specifically addressed to you (as you could have inferred by the exclamation mark. )

Humour is also evidence for Design...

[rossum]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

The laws of nature will always remain fundamentally constant because the purpose of Design is to sustain life and a rational existence.

Then again design fails. For many billions of years after the Big Bang the universe was not suitable to sustain either life or rational existence.

I note that you fail to answer my point that your proposed designer is incapable of changing its design. Hence we can deduce that the designer is not omnipotent, because there is something which is perfectly logically possible, and which human designers can easily do, which your designer cannot do. That is a big problem for a theistic designer.

All scientific propositions are provisional and subject to revision in the light of further evidence whereas Design is not.

And your theory of design is so perfect that you will never need to modify it? By the very fact that it is a theory, you show that it can be modified. Again, science and design give us the same answer so this point does not distinguish between them.

In that case many neuroscientists are already demonstrating their impracticality!

How is this relevant. You said "never". I am asking how we can test "never" without taking infinite time?

Is everything outside the realm of science irrelevant to the interpretation of reality?!

No, but it is irrelevant to deciding between science and design.

In that case many AI scientists are already demonstrating their impracticality!

Again, the problem is how to test your "never" within a finite time.

All rational beings!

Assuming that both Democrats and Republicans are rational beings then your test is useless, since they will not agree on anything. Requiring 100% agreement reduces your test to irrelevance.

Hardly - unless your faith in Buddhism is waning! That statement was specifically addressed to you (as you could have inferred by the exclamation mark.)

Be careful of using universal qualifiers, like "always", in a philosophical argument.

rossum