Evidence for Design? - Page 59

**tonyrey** · #**871** Jan 29, '12, 7:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambrosian

Perhaps not technically-speaking, friend, but anything that is created is designed. Even if the designation of a creature's properties took an immeasurably small amount of time, an infinite moment, it was still a conscious design on the part of the creator. The very essence of God is to exist, yes, and His existence is His essence, but if He is also creator, His proper operation as Creator is to design: whether 'before' creation, or during it.

I love philosophy! How pompous a way to say so simple a thing!

I don't think it's pompous but I'm sure it's true!

**tonyrey** · #**872** Jan 29, '12, 7:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by inocente

I for one gave up challenging, as design fans seem to instantly prejudge any and all objections as unreasonable. I'll stick with the vanilla Christianity of scripture and tradition, ID is sooooo twentieth century.

Anaxoragas and Plato are but two of the Greek philosophers who produced arguments in favour of Design and they have had a constant line of successors - which indicates success!

**tonyrey** · #**873** Jan 29, '12, 7:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by reggieM

The Jewish concept of God was a starting point. The teaching of Jesus advanced our knowledge by building on the original foundation.

Again, for Sair's interest -- analyzing Biblical quotes to understand God's nature and action is a great thing to do -- but it's a theological activity. You have to approach the topic from the perspective in which the Bible was written.

It is impossible to understand the Bible correctly when it is isolated from the Church instituted by Jesus and divorced from His teaching.

**grannymh** · #**874** Jan 29, '12, 7:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

The human soul is made in the image and likeness of God.

To Buffalo and the rest of the Readers.

What specific Catholic doctrines are being defended?

How is the evidence for *design* part of Catholic Apologetics regarding these doctrines?

Blessings,
the nitty-gritty granny

The quest for truth is worth the adventures of the journey.

**tonyrey** · #**875** Jan 29, '12, 8:05 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffalo

The human soul is made in the image and likeness of God.

And the human body is created to be its physical agent by His direct intervention and control of events! Design didn't stop with the Big Bang...

**tonyrey** · #**876** Jan 29, '12, 8:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by grannymh

What specific Catholic doctrines are being defended?

How is the evidence for *design* part of Catholic Apologetics regarding these doctrines?

383 "God did not create man a solitary being. From the beginning, "male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27). This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between persons" (GS 12 § 4).

"THERE'S no way sex could ever be considered a good solution for reproduction among organisms like us- eukaryotes with complex information contained within membraned cells. After all, the exponential growth of a population reproducing asexually seriously outcompetes any sexual strategy: it doubles with each generation, while a sexual population has to bear the cost of males."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228376.700-the-origin-of-sex-was-interaction-not-reproduction.html

It is absurd and incompatible with Christianity to attribute the origin of the male and female sexes solely to natural selection! Asexuality does not provide a physical basis for love as intimate, beautiful and fulfilling as human sexuality........

inocente · #**877** Jan 29, '12, 8:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Anaxoragas and Plato are but two of the Greek philosophers who produced arguments in favour of Design and they have had a constant line of successors - which indicates success!

Some folk wish to blur the line, but imho there’s a clear distinction between the respectable pedigree of the teleological argument and the blip of ID born out of last century US politics.

On the one hand a clear and simple argument, on the other a theory of baroque complexity where no notion, no matter how poor, ever gets thrown away, which is why ID, like all those conspiracy theories, will eventually die of its own accord, no problema.

**tonyrey** · #**878** Jan 29, '12, 9:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by inocente

Some folk wish to blur the line, but imho there’s a clear distinction between the respectable pedigree of the teleological argument and the blip of ID born out of last century US politics.

On the one hand a clear and simple argument, on the other a theory of baroque complexity where no notion, no matter how poor, ever gets thrown away, which is why ID, like all those conspiracy theories, will eventually die of its own accord, no problema.

There is no "baroque complexity" or political motive in the view that the origin of life is not due to a fortuitous conjunction of molecules...

**tonyrey** · #**879** Jan 29, '12, 10:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

And the human body is created to be its physical agent by His direct intervention and control of events! Design didn't stop with the Big Bang...

That colossal explosion didn't put God out of action - as some might have you believe.

**grannymh** · #**880** Jan 29, '12, 11:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

383 "God did not create man a solitary being. From the beginning, "male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27). This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between persons" (GS 12 § 4).

"THERE'S no way sex could ever be considered a good solution for reproduction among organisms like us- eukaryotes with complex information contained within membraned cells. After all, the exponential growth of a population reproducing asexually seriously outcompetes any sexual strategy: it doubles with each generation, while a sexual population has to bear the cost of males."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228376.700-the-origin-of-sex-was-interaction-not-reproduction.html

It is absurd and incompatible with Christianity to attribute the origin of the male and female sexes solely to natural selection! Asexuality does not provide a physical basis for love as intimate, beautiful and fulfilling as human sexuality........

Thank you for two interesting sources of information. Especially useful is the reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

"The Origin of Sex Was Interaction, Not Reproduction' is the title of the article linked in Post 876. While the first two paragraphs, used as a teaser, are interesting, these two out-of-context paragraphs are written from a biological position which is in a different realm than Catholic doctrine. The second paragraph has me wondering about the genetic descriptions being used. Unfortunately, I do not have my science textbook with me.

Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know how this biological information makes the *design* leap to a Catholic doctrine on human nature. In addition, I am interested in how one ties CCC 383 into a specific basic doctrine regarding all humanity. From reading CCC 369 - 373, all kinds of possibilities are there. Taken as a whole, the careful "wording" can make a reasonable case for the two, sole, founders of humanity.

Blessings,
the nitty-gritty granny

The quest for truth is worth the adventures of the journey.

**grannymh** · #**881** Jan 29, '12, 12:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Thanks for your compliment!

Before trying to answer your question it would be useful to know if you believe Catholicism and science are mutually exclusive..

It would take about five and a half posts to properly respond to your request. This is because Catholicism and science are not always mutually exclusive. Thus, my suggestion is to read my posts to see what position I am taking at that particular time.

Blessings,
the nitty-gritty granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem "Christmas" by George Herbert

Al Moritz · #**882** Jan 29, '12, 12:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

That colossal explosion didn't put God out of action - as some might have you believe.

Nobody says that, but you never tire of your old strawmen.

MindOverMatter2 · #**883** Jan 29, '12, 12:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by grannymh

the nitty-gritty granny[/color]

I love you granny.

Godbless

**tonyrey** · #**884** Jan 29, '12, 4:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

Nobody says that, but you never tire of your old strawmen.

Where is your sense of humour?

**tonyrey** · #**885** Jan 29, '12, 4:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by grannymh

Thank you for two interesting sources of information. Especially useful is the reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

"The Origin of Sex Was Interaction, Not Reproduction' is the title of the article linked in Post 876. While the first two paragraphs, used as a teaser, are interesting, these two out-of-context paragraphs are written from a biological position which is in a different realm than Catholic doctrine. The second paragraph has me wondering about the genetic descriptions being used. Unfortunately, I do not have my science textbook with me.

Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know how this biological information makes the *design* leap to a Catholic doctrine on human nature. In addition, I am interested in how one ties CCC 383 into a specific basic doctrine regarding all humanity. From reading CCC 369 - 373, all kinds of possibilities are there. Taken as a whole, the careful "wording" can make a reasonable case for the two, sole, founders of humanity.

Blessings,
the nitty-gritty granny

The quest for truth is worth the adventures of the journey.

It remains a fact that for Christians science is not an adequate explanation of human sexuality...