Evidence for Design?

  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.

Scientific 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.

What are your views?

I agree of course.

This thread should be in the back fence. You know where this will lead.:slight_smile:

I shall ensure that it doesn’t stray into forbidden territory! :wink:

First things first.

If there’s a single rock drifts through space that’s evidence of God, because as Acquinas pointed out we can’t go back in time to infinity, so that rock had a beginning, and had to be created by God.

Now that we’ve established that,

we can see that the increasing complexity of life is God’s design,

because it’s ridiculous to think he started the universe and then did nothing with it. There would be no purpose in starting it in the first place.

:popcorn: :thumbsup: I think the evidence for design speaks for itself. Either there was a designer… or well… if there wasn’t then morality and all laws of nature likewise should not exist.

I agree with

  1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.

But this is not scientific evidence (science proper can say nothing about divine design), but evidence from science, philosophically interpreted.

I also agree with
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

But this is neither scientific evidence, nor evidence from science. It refers to an immaterial soul, which lies outside the scientific method that employs methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism, so science has nothing to say about that. It is purely philosophical evidence (and there is nothing wrong with that; science has no monopoly on rational knowledge).

So be careful with a too loose and incorrect use of the term “scientific” in this context (I say this as a scientist).

The flesh came to be because of the Spirit.

Precisely!

There is no doubt which is the more valuable, significant and powerful! :slight_smile:

Science proper can say nothing about divine design but it is compelled to recognise directiveness and goal-seeking functions in biological organisms, i.e. what Monod called “teleonomic” activity as opposed to “teleological” - which has no scientific explanation.

I also agree with
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

But this is neither scientific evidence, nor evidence from science. It refers to an immaterial soul, which lies outside the scientific method that employs methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism, so science has nothing to say about that. It is purely philosophical evidence (and there is nothing wrong with that; science has no monopoly on rational knowledge).

So be careful with a too loose and incorrect use of the term “scientific” in this context (I say this as a scientist).

Strictly speaking, the existence of rational beings is metascientific evidence because science** presupposes** their existence. :slight_smile:

The devil’s advocate would say the laws of nature** just exist** - for no reason or purpose.

The devil’s advocate would say the laws of nature** just exist** - for no reason or purpose.

There would be no nature to be subject to laws if there were no God.

So they couldn’t “exist” without reason or purpose.

You have a point! In fact it is the fundamental point. Very sharp indeed… At the cutting “edge” of reality! :wink:

‘Metascience’ has just as little to do with science as metaphysics has to do with physics!

I don’t think there is any evidence of a designer, and I can think of tons of examples that patently contradict the idea of a designer of any description. Of course, the answer will always be, well, youre not God so you dont know WHY He did it like that, but there must be a reason, as God did it :smiley:

So, my views? … no, I see no evidence for a designer :slight_smile:

This will be my full and total contribution to this thread - these threads tend to degenerate quite quickly. So, thanks for the short question, and not asking for the views to be justified :smiley:

Interesting the courts decided Intelligent design was just Creationism by another name though.

Sarah x :slight_smile:

I agree that the idea of biological Intelligent Design does not work.

That all goes in the category of organization, not design.

Are all your beliefs, reasons, values, choices and decisions the result of organisation?

If so by what? :confused:

Then science lacks a **rational **foundation!

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.