Powerful evidence for Design?

[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.

[buffalo]

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

rossum, with all due respect, your paradigm is crumbling everyday. Don't go down with the ship. Give up that false idol god, BUC.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Emphasis mine.

Design is a theory, one of many in natural science. As a theory, it relates to the intelligibility of the universe. As a theory of the way nature works, it is a pretty good one.

However, it needs to be noted that Design cannot serve as an ad for Catholicism because Catholicism pertains to the spiritual domain which is essentially different from the natural science domain.

with the proviso that Design is not restricted to natural science...

[Charlemagne II]

tonyrey

The only rival to Design is (not surprisingly) non-Design - or any philosophy which dispenses with Design.

The most powerful evidence for intelligent design is that we cannot understand the universe except as something that has been designed. If all nature were not designed, there would no reason for design to come into existence. All would be happenstance and unintelligible. Any scientist goes into his lab not to discover happenstance, but to design an experiment. From his experiment he discovers that nature exists according to laws, not happenstance. The fact that he can do so (intelligently design experiments) is evidence that design exists in the universe of our minds. From our knowledge of what we can intelligently plan in the lab, we can imagine what God can plan in the universe.

[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

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

with the proviso that Design is not restricted to natural science...

On CAF, Design has always been exemplified in the material/physical world except when a non-determined agent is proposed. A somewhat mysterious intelligent agent is not an advertisement for Catholicism. Obviously, the Design theory is appropriate in natural science because it explains the order of the material/physical parts of objects in time and space.

The spiritual soul in itself does not contain material/physical parts; it uses the material/physical parts of the human anatomy to operate in the material domain and, just as important, the spiritual soul uses its spiritual abilities to operate in the non-material domain.

The reverse, anatomy using the spiritual soul to in order to perform its anatomical functions, is not possible; nevertheless, the anatomy can affect some of the functions of the spiritual soul.

One of the keys to understanding the "design" of human nature is to start with the union of spirit and matter as taught by the Catholic Church. The difficulty of free speech is trying to sort out what is speculation and what is basic doctrine, especially when basic doctrine intersects with natural science. Perhaps that difficulty is one of the reasons that normally Design remains (restricted) in the material/physical universe.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by rossum

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.

1. There is no evidence that the laws of nature have not remained fundamentally constant until now.

2. It is also irrelevant because the issue is whether the laws of nature will remain fundamentally constant.

3.The issue is also whether they will continue to sustain life or rational existence, not whether they have always done so.

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.

4. The laws of nature cannot be changed without adversely affecting the continuation of life or rational existence in their present forms.

5. Design is concerned with life or rational existence in this universe not in any possible universe.

7. Omnipotence remains unscathed because it does not entail inconsistency.

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.

8. There is no need to modify the Design explanation because it simply states that the universe is the product of intelligent activity - to which there is only one alternative: non-Design.

9. Science is concerned solely with physical reality whereas Design is concerned with reality as a whole.

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?

10. As in science "never" is understood to mean within the apparent limits of this universe.

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

11. It is not irrelevant because science is concerned solely with physical reality whereas Design is concerned with reality as a whole.

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

12. Again - as in science "never" - is understood to mean within the apparent limits of this universe. (No AI scientists or neuroscientists or anyone else will presumably outlive this universe - at least physically!)

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.

Irrational beings are incapable of agreeing on anything!

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

Be careful of underestimating the value of humour on a philosophy forum - especially when it highlights the incompatibility of Buddhism and materialism...

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

tonyrey

The only rival to Design is (not surprisingly) non-Design - or any philosophy which dispenses with Design.

The most powerful evidence for intelligent design is that we cannot understand the universe except as something that has been designed. If all nature were not designed, there would no reason for design to come into existence. All would be happenstance and unintelligible. Any scientist goes into his lab not to discover happenstance, but to design an experiment. From his experiment he discovers that nature exists according to laws, not happenstance. The fact that he can do so (intelligently design experiments) is evidence that design exists in the universe of our minds. From our knowledge of what we can intelligently plan in the lab, we can imagine what God can plan in the universe.

To conclude otherwise is to to stake everything on the primacy of unintelligent objects in an intelligible universe.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by grannymh

On CAF, Design has always been exemplified in the material/physical world except when a non-determined agent is proposed. A somewhat mysterious intelligent agent is not an advertisement for Catholicism. Obviously, the Design theory is appropriate in natural science because it explains the order of the material/physical parts of objects in time and space.

The spiritual soul in itself does not contain material/physical parts; it uses the material/physical parts of the human anatomy to operate in the material domain and, just as important, the spiritual soul uses its spiritual abilities to operate in the non-material domain.

The reverse, anatomy using the spiritual soul to in order to perform its anatomical functions, is not possible; nevertheless, the anatomy can affect some of the functions of the spiritual soul.

One of the keys to understanding the "design" of human nature is to start with the union of spirit and matter as taught by the Catholic Church. The difficulty of free speech is trying to sort out what is speculation and what is basic doctrine, especially when basic doctrine intersects with natural science. Perhaps that difficulty is one of the reasons that normally Design remains (restricted) in the material/physical universe.

The power of the mind opens horizons closed to those who are restricted to material objects and physical energy.

[tonyrey]

On rereading the OP it seems rather elitist with its statement:

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.

Billions of people don't have such opportunities because for them life is a struggle for survival in a world dominated by financial interests and harsh competition. Yet it remains true that the poor find happiness in family life and friendship - and often more happiness than those who are better off and have less time for one another.

It also remains true that the spiritual life is their greatest source of inspiration and consolation. There are far more converts to religion in the poorer countries because they realise love is more important than luxury and the purpose of life is not confined to the pleasures of this world. Worldly possessions are often an obstacle to spiritual development because they absorb so much of our time and energy:

Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knows that ye have need of all these things.
Seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness and all these things shall be added to you..

- Mark: 6:28-33


Design is evident not only in the exquisite beauty of nature but also in our quest for truth, freedom, justice, love and perfection. These are spiritual realities we all need and appreciate even more when we are deprived of them.

Evil is not a disproof of Design but evidence of its existence!

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by 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:

- 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.

Isn't it paganism to praise the order of this universe, to suggest it is the work of God- for "nothing this Kosmos has to offer could ever come from the Father", and "the whole Kosmos lies under the rule of the Evil One"?

Even if God is the Creator of 'being' as such, the order, the design of this Universe, is a product of Original Sin, enslaved to the control of the Prince of this World.

It upsets me when people suggest that this corrupt universe reflects the design of the loving God.

[prodigalson2011]

To me, the most powerful evidence of design is sensory apparatus. It seems to me that in order for a phenomenon such as sight or hearing to come into existence, the concept must have preceded it. How can unconscious, self replicating cells go about establishing the idea of light reception/codification/translation? Or any of the various functions our bodies perform? Logic seems to require that the potential preceded the product.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

Isn't it paganism to praise the order of this universe, to suggest it is the work of God- for "nothing this Kosmos has to offer could ever come from the Father", and "the whole Kosmos lies under the rule of the Evil One"?

It savours of Satanism or Manichaeism to suggest that the order of this universe is the work of the Devil. St John's Epistle is concerned with moral evil:

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness....
16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

It is inordinate desires that are being condemned, the desires of a Godless world, i.e. the world of those who live as if God does not exist.

Even if God is the Creator of 'being' as such, the order, the design of this Universe, is a product of Original Sin, enslaved to the control of the Prince of this World.

It is absurd to believe the entire universe is under the control of Satan.

It upsets me when people suggest that this corrupt universe reflects the design of the loving God.

A corrupt universe?!

Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
And if God cares so wonderfully for flowers that are here today and thrown into the fire tomorrow, he will certainly care for you. Why do you have so little faith?

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

To me, the most powerful evidence of design is sensory apparatus. It seems to me that in order for a phenomenon such as sight or hearing to come into existence, the concept must have preceded it. How can unconscious, self replicating cells go about establishing the idea of light reception/codification/translation? Or any of the various functions our bodies perform? Logic seems to require that the potential preceded the product.

A powerful post! It is also taken for granted that cells automatically self-replicate due to physical necessity - but I don't wish to distract attention from the fact that the concept must have preceded such exquisite, complex and precious products.

[rossum]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

1. There is no evidence that the laws of nature have not remained fundamentally constant until now.

False. The laws of nature were very different before the Big Bang. Again, design is disproven.

2. It is also irrelevant because the issue is whether the laws of nature will remain fundamentally constant.

Once again, this is untestable because it requires infinite time to test.

3.The issue is also whether they will continue to sustain life or rational existence, not whether they have always done so.

Then again design fails. In a few billion years, when the Sun turns into a red giant, the Earth will be uninhabitable.

4. The laws of nature cannot be changed without adversely affecting the continuation of life or rational existence in their present forms.

Again, design fails. Change the laws of nature slightly, so the Sun remains roughly as it is for longer and the continuation of life or rational existence in their present forms will be for longer. Do you really not think through these points carefully, Tony? Is you basic knowledge of science really so limited that you cannot anticipate these points before I make them.

5. Design is concerned with life or rational existence in this universe not in any possible universe.

So, design is incapable of explaining why we have a universe the way it is. Science can at least partly explain that. Science provide the superior explanation.

<mode="Monty Python">There is no point six.</mode>

7. Omnipotence remains unscathed because it does not entail inconsistency.

Omnipotence is very scathed because modifying a design does not have to be inconsistent. When a new graphics processor becomes available, a games designer will produce a new version of her game to take advantage of the facilities of the new processor. How is that inconsistent? Your designer cannot be omnipotent because, as you say, it cannot change its designs.

8. There is no need to modify the Design explanation because it simply states that the universe is the product of intelligent activity - to which there is only one alternative: non-Design.

Then it is not an explanation. It does not tell us why things are as they are, and not different.

9. Science is concerned solely with physical reality whereas Design is concerned with reality as a whole.

Agreed. Science gets its strength from specialising in what it can handle well. Design suffers from trying to spread itself too thinly, and hence not having anything substantial to offer.

10. As in science "never" is understood to mean within the apparent limits of this universe.

That still makes it untestable, within the limits of the universe. Nobody will be alive during the long drawn out heat death.

11. It is not irrelevant because science is concerned solely with physical reality whereas Design is concerned with reality as a whole.

It is irrelevant when deciding between science and design. Design may be a chess champion, but that is irrelevant in deciding whether science or design can run fastest over 100 metres.

12. Again - as in science "never" - is understood to mean within the apparent limits of this universe. (No AI scientists or neuroscientists or anyone else will presumably outlive this universe - at least physically!)

See my point about the heat death. Your point is untestable during the lifetime of the human race.

Irrational beings are incapable of agreeing on anything!

But both Parties can agree that the other Party is irrational.

rossum