Evidence for Design? - Page 69

reggieM · #**1021** Jan 31, '12, 12:50 pm

Let's take a look at these remarkable replies from Fr. McWilliam's Catholic textbook. He offers objections to intelligent design and then answers the objections:

Obj .4. Science follows the principle of closed causality, i.e. not to seek outside the world for an explanation of things in the world. But such a principle excludes an extramundane causes of the world’s order.
Reply. The scope of physical science is to discover the integral parts of bodies and to formulate laws of their activities; hence it is not called upon to give any explanation beyond that such and such is the nature of their bodies. Science takes nature as dataum, but if it be true science it does not condemn the philosophical attempt to explain nature. On the contrary scientific investigation supplies philosophy with abundant data from which to reason to an extramundane cause of the world’s order. Thus science, whether willingly or not, becomes an ancilla philosophiae.

Obj .5. Out of all the combinations possible to chance the present world order is one. Therefore that order may be due to chance.
Reply.. When we consider that there is order in each single atom, and molecule, and crystal, and cell, and organ, and organism, and in the interrelation of all the various classes of beings, and that there is cooperation to a refined degree among all the forms of energy, and when we reflect on the countless constituents of the material world, we begin to see how futile is the appeal to chance. But that is not all; the world is in a condition of constant change, and has been so, according to science, for millions of years. The astounding chance which the objection postulates for any given instant of that time must be repeated all over again in that infinitesimal fraction of the world’s duration; for order is preserved throughout the continuous change. Such an occurrence is mathematically and metaphysically impossible. The idea of its happening by chance even once makes the mind reel …

Obj . 6. Given a certain amount of matter, equipped with certain forces, and granted that the matter thus diversified he distributed in the proper ratio and collocation, then all the physical and chemical processes which we recognize as world result necessarily. But what results necessarily does not require intelligence. Therefore world-processes do not require intelligence.
Reply. If what results is disorder, I grant that it does not require intelligence. If what results is an ordered series of events. then, that it does not require intelligence, I deny. The objection, in fact, fails on four counts. (a) it supplies that finality does not omit the natural agent_to act
That supposition is false. For, as we have seen, finality does not exclude necessity in the activity of the immediate material agent. (b) The objection is silent on the exact point at issue, which is not that the forces act and interact with necessity, but that they do so in such a way that a very complicated and highly ordered universe results and continues unceasingly to result and develop. This is the fact that ways stares us in the face, and from which the clamor about necessity (which no one denies) can never distract our attention. Necessity is irrelevant: it can be present in activities that produce disorder, as in the wreck of a railway train; it can be present in activities that produce order, as in the smoothly operating machine. Necessity in activity is not opposed to finality, it is opposed to freedom. But wherever there is order whether in free or necessary actions, intelligence alone can be responsible for the order. So much for the explanation of the distinction given at the beginning of our reply. Furthermore, (c) reason cannot grant the postulate that plants and animals, and even the intellect of man, are, as the objection supposes, purely the results of physico-chernical forces. Finally, (d) the postulate begs the question, for it implies that matter with its forces and arrangement is unproduced and self-evident, that it not only acts necessarily but exists necessarily, that it is a se, or in other words the absolutely ultimate reality, and that therefore no further explanation of world-order can possibly be found. To ask that we grant such a postulate is tantamount to asking that we
grant the conclusion of the argument before the argument begins.

Obj . 7. Nature is a machine. But a machine needs no intelligence.
Reply. Nature is more than a mere machine. Even a machine, however, needs an intelligent builder, and usually an intelligent operator.

Obj . 9. Many things in nature are abhorrent, as pain, parasites, the struggle for existence. But these things cannot be considered as intended by a wise and beneficent Creator.
Reply. The examples cited give evidence of intelligence, whether pleasant or not. Our task here is to show that the Author of the world is intelligent. We leave to theodicy the vindication of His wisdom and goodness.

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=KFBVAAAAMAAJ

Al Moritz · #**1022** Jan 31, '12, 12:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

Evidently you didn't read the article in the link.

Typical, the biological ID people ignore every argument anyway, and if they don't, they twist your views so you have to correct them -- over and over (sigh).

**tonyrey** · #**1023** Jan 31, '12, 12:57 pm

As the number of posts on this thread now amounts to over a thousand and is likely to be closed quite soon I wish to draw attention to my original statement:

1. Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

In further support of that view I believe scientific and metascientific evidence for Design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

Does anyone reject all of these factors as evidence for Design?

Al Moritz · #**1024** Jan 31, '12, 1:19 pm

Post # 1:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

Post # 1023:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

In further support of that view I believe scientific and metascientific evidence for Design consists of:

I see some progress in wording here, that's for sure. Good job

Al Moritz · #**1025** Jan 31, '12, 1:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Does anyone reject all of these factors as evidence for Design?

No. I don't. There are some I agree with.

reggieM · #**1026** Jan 31, '12, 1:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

I don't see biological ID throughout the universe, but I see intelligent design throughout the universe just like Newton, in the sense that the laws of nature that bring about the development of the universe are designed by God.

One reason why people, apparently, are misunderstanding your view (aside from the "fact" that all biological ID people are dishonest, evil, corrupted, etc) ... is that your view is confused and is shifting as we discuss these matters.

You are on record as accepting cosmological fine-tuning (the cosmological ID view). You stated that earlier in the thread.

Now here, you have changed that view, insisting that this is what you actually meant -- that "the laws of nature bring about the development of the universe" and this is design.

That's a contradiction. You're moving away from cosmological fine-tuning and coming up with a different argument.

See? That's why people question you. Cosmological fine-tuning is an argument against the laws of the universe. It is because fine-tuning cannot be explained by law or chance that it is evidence of design.

That's where your position is quite confused. At the rate you're going, I would not be surprised if you actually denied that you saw cosmological fine-tuning as evidence of design. After all, it's very close to the biological-ID position and we all know how bad that is.

Al Moritz · #**1027** Jan 31, '12, 1:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by reggieM

One reason why people, apparently, are misunderstanding your view (aside from the "fact" that all biological ID people are dishonest, evil, corrupted, etc) ... is that your view is confused and is shifting as we discuss these matters.

You are on record as accepting cosmological fine-tuning (the cosmological ID view). You stated that earlier in the thread.

Now here, you have changed that view, insisting that this is what you actually meant -- that "the laws of nature bring about the development of the universe" and this is design.

That's a contradiction. You're moving away from cosmological fine-tuning and coming up with a different argument.

See? That's why people question you. Cosmological fine-tuning is an argument against the laws of the universe. It is because fine-tuning cannot be explained by law or chance that it is evidence of design.

That's where your position is quite confused. At the rate you're going, I would not be surprised if you actually denied that you saw cosmological fine-tuning as evidence of design. After all, it's very close to the biological-ID position and we all know how bad that is.

Huh? As is obvious from your post, the one who is confused here is you.

" Cosmological fine-tuning is an argument against the laws of the universe."

Now that's the funniest thing here in a while.

Al Moritz · #**1028** Jan 31, '12, 1:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by reggieM

At the rate you're going, I would not be surprised if you actually denied that you saw cosmological fine-tuning as evidence of design. After all, it's very close to the biological-ID position and we all know how bad that is.

No it's not. It is radically different. But you don't see that, do you?

reggieM · #**1029** Jan 31, '12, 1:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

Huh? As is obvious from your post, the one who is confused here is you.

" Cosmological fine-tuning is an argument against the laws of the universe."

Now that's the funniest thing here in a while.

Which laws of the universe explain fine-tuning?

reggieM · #**1030** Jan 31, '12, 1:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

No it's not. It is radically different. But you don't see that, do you?

Well, let's get back to your own shifting views on this for now.

Leonard Susskind: If, for some unforeseen reason, the [multiverse] turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

A blog comments:

Susskind has presented the physics community with what is, for some (not this writer), a Sophie’s Choice: a hidious, complictated, unfalsifiable String-Theory Landscape, or Intelligent Design.

Susskind rocks.

Al Moritz · #**1031** Jan 31, '12, 1:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by reggieM

Which laws of the universe explain fine-tuning?

Huh? What does this have to with anything? Of course no laws explain it, God explains it. But that doesn't make fine-tuning an argument against the laws of nature -- it explains them.

Al Moritz · #**1032** Jan 31, '12, 1:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by reggieM

Well, let's get back to your own shifting views on this for now.

Leonard Susskind: If, for some unforeseen reason, the [multiverse] turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

Update: Susskind is fast becoming the darling of the IDers. A new posting on the web-site “Intelligent Design the Future” run by the Discovery Institute links to a review by IDer and nuclear physicist David Heddle entitled Susskind’s Sophie’s Choice.

Heddle concludes:

Susskind has presented the physics community with what is, for some (not this writer), a Sophie’s Choice: a hidious, complictated, unfalsifiable String-Theory Landscape, or Intelligent Design.

Susskind rocks.

Aah, see, the confusion is on your side.

I have repeated several (many) times that the term ID is commonly used for biological ID and not for cosmological Intelligent Design. But you didn't listen.

And in the above the two terms are confused with one another.

reggieM · #**1033** Jan 31, '12, 1:37 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

Huh? What does this have to with anything? Of course no laws explain it, God explains it. But that doesn't make fine-tuning an argument against the laws of nature -- it explains them.

Fine-tuning arguments explain laws which are incapable of explaining fine-tuning.

Let's just leave it with the part that makes sense: "no laws explain it".

God bless.

reggieM · #**1034** Jan 31, '12, 1:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

Aah, see, the confusion is on your side.

I have repeated several (many) times that the term ID is commonly used for biological ID and not for cosmological Intelligent Design. But you didn't listen.

And in the above the two terms are confused with one another.

I think you're a very smart guy and I've appreciated your contributions to this topic.
I'm glad we do agree on many essentials.

Al Moritz · #**1035** Jan 31, '12, 1:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by inocente

Or should I instead go with something more like Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design published right here on Catholic Answers?

Now that is a truly excellent link! Thanks for posting this!

O.k., here's the deal:

I will not discuss any further until ReggieM, Tonyrey, Charlemagne, Buffalo and other IDers here have read that link in its entirety.

Until everyone reads it, further discussion is futile.

Among others, it explains very well the connection between natural causes and divine providence through them and keeping nature in existence on one hand, and divine "intervention" on the other hand. Along the way, it very well explains classical theistic philosophy.

A must-read. See you on the other side.

(By the way, the design that the article espouses under the heading "No order, no science" is precisely the one of nature following order and natural laws -- that is where the cosmological fine-tuning argument can come in.)