Evidence against Design?


#1
  1. Evidence against Design consists of the negative aspects of reality.
  2. The most significant negative aspect of reality is evil.
  3. Physical evil is negative because it harms or destroys living beings and their habitat.
  4. Physical evil has physical causes which are essential for life.
  5. Physical evil is inevitable in a physical universe.
  6. Moral evil is negative because it interferes with personal development and fulfilment.
  7. Moral evil also harms or destroys living beings and their habitat.
  8. Moral evil presupposes free will. (Kant: "Ought implies can".)
  9. Free will presupposes the power of reason.
  10. Free will also presupposes the power to be unreasonable.

#2

[quote="tonyrey, post:1, topic:294068"]
1. Evidence against Design consists of the negative aspects of reality.

[/quote]

And also the absence of any designer. If there is no designer, then there can be no design.

rossum


#3

All those things you stated aren't evidence against design in my opinion.

They are evidence against an omnibenevolent designer.


#4

[quote="rossum, post:2, topic:294068"]
And also the absence of any designer. If there is no designer, then there can be no design.

[/quote]

Correct but the topic is Design. ;)


#5

[quote="Drinkgasoline, post:3, topic:294068"]
All those things you stated aren't evidence against design in my opinion.

They are evidence against an omnibenevolent designer.

[/quote]

The topic is Design. ;)


#6

[quote="rossum, post:2, topic:294068"]
Originally Posted by tonyrey

1. Evidence against Design consists of the negative aspects of reality.

And also the absence of any designer. If there is no designer, then there can be no design.

rossum

[/quote]

Nonsense. Artists use negative space all the time. You are approaching this from a purely mechanical stance which is, at best, flawed. You also seem to be assuming that a design is static, and never changes. The world is not a wrench, or a drill-press, something static and fixed. The world is a machine shop, and we are students set loose upon it. A great master has assembled a vast panapoly of creative tools, of raw goods and even instructions for their use. We have been given demonstrations for the proper use of these tools, and shown many ways in which they can be used.

This does not mean that a student will not pick up a file and turn it into a knife. This does not mean that a poorly-machined part will not break. This does not mean that improper care and use will not result in injury.

As humans, we have been given the entirety of the cosmos in which to explore, play, learn and improve. And yet everything we need is right here on our home planet, usually within easy walking distance. But instead of improving ourselves, building a utopia and exploring the stars, what do we do? We turn to greed, we turn to anger, we turn to lust. There is a marvel built in the middle of the Nevada desert, an oasis built on sand. It could be a testament to human thought, to perseverence. It could feed thousands on the water used in a day, it could power nations from the energy consumed, but what do we use it for? Debauchery.

When a neighbour's child hits a baseball through your window, do you blame the one who made the bat and ball, perfect in their simplicity?


#7

[quote="tonyrey, post:1, topic:294068"]
1. Evidence against Design consists of the negative aspects of reality.
2. The most significant negative aspect of reality is evil.
3. Physical evil is negative because it harms or destroys living beings and their habitat.
4. Physical evil has physical causes which are essential for life.
5. Physical evil is inevitable in a physical universe.
6. Moral evil is negative because it interferes with personal development and fulfilment.
7. Moral evil also harms or destroys living beings and their habitat.
8. Moral evil presupposes free will. (Kant: "Ought implies can".)
9. Free will presupposes the power of reason.
10. Free will also presupposes the power to be unreasonable.

[/quote]

Would heaven be designed then?


#8

[quote="tonyrey, post:4, topic:294068"]
Correct but the topic is Design. ;)

[/quote]

The topic is "Evidence against design". The absence of a designer is evidence against design.

rossum


#9

[quote="TheDoors, post:6, topic:294068"]
Nonsense. Artists use negative space all the time. You are approaching this from a purely mechanical stance which is, at best, flawed. You also seem to be assuming that a design is static, and never changes. The world is not a wrench, or a drill-press, something static and fixed. The world is a machine shop, and we are students set loose upon it. A great master has assembled a vast panapoly of creative tools, of raw goods and even instructions for their use. We have been given demonstrations for the proper use of these tools, and shown many ways in which they can be used.

This does not mean that a student will not pick up a file and turn it into a knife. This does not mean that a poorly-machined part will not break. This does not mean that improper care and use will not result in injury.

As humans, we have been given the entirety of the cosmos in which to explore, play, learn and improve. And yet everything we need is right here on our home planet, usually within easy walking distance. But instead of improving ourselves, building a utopia and exploring the stars, what do we do? We turn to greed, we turn to anger, we turn to lust. There is a marvel built in the middle of the Nevada desert, an oasis built on sand. It could be a testament to human thought, to perseverence. It could feed thousands on the water used in a day, it could power nations from the energy consumed, but what do we use it for? Debauchery.

When a neighbour's child hits a baseball through your window, do you blame the one who made the bat and ball, perfect in their simplicity?

[/quote]

:thumbsup: The topic is not the Designer but that doesn't detract from the excellence of your post because your points apply almost entirely to Design. :)


#10

[quote="rossum, post:8, topic:294068"]
The topic is "Evidence against design". The absence of a designer is evidence against design.

[/quote]

The question of the Designer doesn't arise unless there is evidence for Design.

The absence of the Designer cannot be assumed at the outset if one is open-minded.


#11

[quote="tonyrey, post:9, topic:294068"]
:thumbsup: The topic is not the Designer but that doesn't detract from the excellence of your post because your points apply almost entirely to Design. :)

[/quote]

I'm afraid that I can't argue one without the other. A design can not exist without a designer, and a designer would not be evident without a design.


#12

[quote="rossum, post:8, topic:294068"]
The topic is "Evidence against design". The absence of a designer is evidence against design.

rossum

[/quote]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


#13

[quote="TheDoors, post:11, topic:294068"]
I'm afraid that I can't argue one without the other. A design can not exist without a designer, and a designer would not be evident without a design.

[/quote]

As I pointed out to rossum the question of the Designer doesn't arise unless there is evidence for Design. That can be decided only when we have carefully considered whether the evidence against Design is compelling or not. In philosophy we should start with an open mind - as far as that is humanly possible!


#14

[quote="tonyrey, post:13, topic:294068"]
As I pointed out to rossum the question of the Designer doesn't arise unless there is evidence for Design. That can be decided only when we have carefully considered whether the evidence against Design is compelling or not. In philosophy we should start with an open mind - as far as that is humanly possible!

[/quote]

I actually spent quite a bit of time on this topic, measuring the evidence. In the end, my starting point came, shockingly enough, at the beginning. To paraphrase Plato:

Someone had to flip the "on" switch.


#15

[quote="buffalo, post:12, topic:294068"]
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[/quote]

:thumbsup: Indeed. That is the point of this thread. Until it is demonstrated that the evidence against Design is conclusive we're not justified in reaching a decision.


#16

[quote="tonyrey, post:10, topic:294068"]
The question of the Designer doesn't arise unless there is evidence for Design.

[/quote]

The question of design does not arise unless there is a designer.

The absence of the Designer cannot be assumed at the outset if one is open-minded.

The presence of a designer cannot be assumed at the outset if one is open-minded.

rossum


#17

Design exists we know for sure. We see it everyday. Design deniers believe that design only exists in this frame of reference and is entirely human.

When we recognize design it is because it has been cognized.

The burden of proof is on the deniers to rationalize why it is only human and only in this frame.


#18

[quote="TheDoors, post:14, topic:294068"]
I actually spent quite a bit of time on this topic, measuring the evidence. In the end, my starting point came, shockingly enough, at the beginning. To paraphrase Plato:

Someone had to flip the "on" switch.

[/quote]

I have reached the same conclusion but there are many who find the evidence against Design compelling. That is why it is essential to begin without presuppositions. :)


#19

[quote="buffalo, post:12, topic:294068"]
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[/quote]

However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of presence either. Nobody asserts that there can be design without a designer. In the absence of any evidence for a designer then the assertion that a designer exists can at best be highly provisional.

rossum


#20

[quote="TheDoors, post:14, topic:294068"]
I actually spent quite a bit of time on this topic, measuring the evidence. In the end, my starting point came, shockingly enough, at the beginning. To paraphrase Plato:

Someone had to flip the "on" switch.

[/quote]

http://forums.catholic.com/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7313


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.