Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[DogmaHunter]

indeed, like this one about the retina:

Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision."

Funny how neither of these sources considers it a problem for evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Whatever you need to tell yourself to keep your outdated views...... But you didn't bother to read what your fellow evolutionists say.....

Your Appendix Might Serve an Important Biological Function After All

"They found that the organ has evolved at least 29 times - possibly as many as 41 times - throughout mammalian evolution, and has only been lost a maximum of 12 times.

"This statistically strong evidence that the appearance of the appendix is significantly more probable than its loss suggests a selective value for this structure," the team reports.

"Thus, we can confidently reject the hypothesis that the appendix is a vestigial structure with little adaptive value or function among mammals."

So, you accept that the organ has evolved at least 29 times, possibly as many as 41 times?

Or are you just quoting this in some kind of pragmatic way, because you'll quote just about anything that you feel supports the point you are making at that specific time, while you would reject the same information later when trying to make some other point?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Living beings were created perfectly. There were no mutations,
no sickness or disease before sin.

Evidence for this claim?

He was prepared for every problem before creation began.

is that why he had to start over several times?

 

[tas8831]

No, just question asking.

Living beings were created perfectly.

See, now THAT is question begging.

There were no mutations,
no sickness or disease before sin.

Please present your evidence for these wild assertions.

But our fall didn't surprise God.
He was prepared for every problem before creation began.

Assertion.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a small clean.
Please demonstrate intelligence by avoiding further flaming and goading.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Speedwell]

I agree with this entirely, but I'm wondering what your theological solution to this problem is. I assume you're a theistic evolutionist also, but how precisely do you conceive of that working? Is God absent from the picture entirely, and if so, why?

There is some really good theology on the evolutionary side--I'm interested in John Haught's work--and I think when attacking ID on theological grounds (which is what calling it unintelligent is), we do have to present an alternative account that works theologically. You can't really reconcile Christianity in particular with an absent deistic God.

I think that people are attracted to ID because they have fallen into the metaphysical error that a natural process, especially a natural process with a randomizing element like evolution, cannot be the vehicle of divine telos.

The notion that theistic evolution requires an absent, deistic God is a sophistical creationist rhetorical strategy, not a theological reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think that people are attracted to ID because they have fallen into the metaphysical error that a natural process, especially a natural process with a randomizing element like evolution, cannot be the vehicle of divine telos.

The notion that theistic evolution requires an absent, deistic God is a sophistical creationist rhetorical strategy, not a theological reality.

I've also always wondered....

If all this "god" stuff is "metaphysics" and "abstract" and "transcending" etc....
Then why can't the "divine human" part of homo sapiens be the same?

Why can't they just say that when the bible says "made in his image", it just means that homo sapiens shares those same, or similar, "metaphysical / abstract / transcending" properties. And that the stuff we actually observe (our physical bodies and the stuff it contains) just be part of the natural order of things?

Why wouldn't an all powerful god be able to create a system of "self assembling biological machines" that evolve over time, in such a way that at some point a species arrives that is capable of higher learning, which then gets "chosen" to receive such properties? Or that the system is set up in such a way that such a species inevitably arises at some point?

Not that I think any of that is convincing off course... to me, it all sounds much like the undetectable pink graviton pixies that somehow make gravity work. But at least, such an approach doesn't require you to ignore and downright deny solid scientific inquiry and conclusions.....

 

[Speedwell]

I've also always wondered....

If all this "god" stuff is "metaphysics" and "abstract" and "transcending" etc....
Then why can't the "divine human" part of homo sapiens be the same?

Why can't they just say that when the bible says "made in his image", it just means that homo sapiens shares those same, or similar, "metaphysical / abstract / transcending" properties. And that the stuff we actually observe (our physical bodies and the stuff it contains) just be part of the natural order of things?

Why wouldn't an all powerful god be able to create a system of "self assembling biological machines" that evolve over time, in such a way that at some point a species arrives that is capable of higher learning, which then gets "chosen" to receive such properties? Or that the system is set up in such a way that such a species inevitably arises at some point?

LOL! Of course. Theologians like Thomas Aquinas have worded it a little differently but you seem to have captured the essence of it.

Not that I think any of that is convincing off course... to me, it all sounds much like the undetectable pink graviton pixies that somehow make gravity work. But at least, such an approach doesn't require you to ignore and downright deny solid scientific inquiry and conclusions.....

Like all properly crafted theological propositions, it is unfalsifiable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

indeed, like this one about the retina:

Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision."

Kind-of... the telling quote in the New Scientist article is from Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who says that this doesn’t mean that the backwards retina itself helps us to see. Rather, it emphasises the extent to which evolution has coped with the flawed layout. “The shape, orientation and structure of the Müller cells help the retina to overcome one of the principal shortcomings of its inside-out wiring,” says Miller.

Other effective camera-style eyes have evolved that don't have the 'inside-out' structure of vertebrate eyes, e.g. cephalopod eyes.

 

[Silmarien]

I think that people are attracted to ID because they have fallen into the metaphysical error that a natural process, especially a natural process with a randomizing element like evolution, cannot be the vehicle of divine telos.

The notion that theistic evolution requires an absent, deistic God is a sophistical creationist rhetorical strategy, not a theological reality.

I don't think it requires an absent, deistic God--I strongly favor the theology behind theistic evolution, but I'm curious as to how other theistic evolutionists around here approach the theological questions involved. Saying it isn't an issue isn't a response. It was certainly an issue for me moving from non-theism to theism, so I don't think it's something that ought to be swept under the table.

If we're specifically going to attack ID as unintelligent, I think we have the responsibility to explain how evolution demonstrates some sort of hidden divine intelligence. Otherwise it is not clear how deism or pantheism doesn't follow.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

How do you know those anomalies are not by or are a part of the design we just do not fully understand yet...?

God Bless!

Great question! We don't really know, do we? So... how do we test it to see which is true?

 

[Neogaia777]

Great question! We don't really know, do we? So... how do we test it to see which is true?

IDK...?

God Bless!

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think it requires an absent, deistic God--I strongly favor the theology behind theistic evolution, but I'm curious as to how other theistic evolutionists around here approach the theological questions involved. Saying it isn't an issue isn't a response. It was certainly an issue for me moving from non-theism to theism, so I don't think it's something that ought to be swept under the table.

If we're specifically going to attack ID as unintelligent, I think we have the responsibility to explain how evolution demonstrates some sort of hidden divine intelligence. Otherwise it is not clear how deism or pantheism doesn't follow.

It's a question of how one characterizes causality. Science deals with the mechanistic causality of physical and chemical interactions only--what Aristotle, 2500 years ago, identified as "efficient" causality, one of four kinds of cause required for any phenomenon. If that's all you think there is to it then yes, theistic evolution collapses into deism. If, on the other hand, you take the position that efficient causality alone is not sufficient, then nothing is swept under the table. The other big issue with creationists is the randomizing element in evolutionary process. Here is a quote from St. Thomas to the point:

"Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes."

--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae​

Nothing happens in the universe without the continuous sustenance of Divine Providence, but you can't prove its presence with science.

​

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

IDK...?

God Bless!

fair answer! Nothing wrong with not knowing the answer.

So, if we can't know either way by testing it then it seems we should lean the direction the evidence suggests. i.e. natural causation or "unintelligent design"

Until we have something pointing at "intelligent design" and/or an intelligent designer it makes more sense to go with the natural hypothesis. Yes?

 

[Silmarien]

It's a question of how one characterizes causality. Science deals with the mechanistic causality of physical and chemical interactions only--what Aristotle, 2500 years ago, identified as "efficient" causality, one of four kinds of cause required for any phenomenon. If that's all you think there is to it then yes, theistic evolution collapses into deism. If, on the other hand, you take the position that efficient causality alone is not sufficient, then nothing is swept under the table. The other big issue with creationists is the randomizing element in evolutionary process. Here is a quote from St. Thomas to the point:

"Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes."

--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae​

Nothing happens in the universe without the continuous sustenance of Divine Providence, but you can't prove its presence with science.

​

Alright, cool. I hadn't realized you were in the Thomistic camp. That gets around the mechanistic issues associated with evolution, but there's still the Problem of Evil and why a supposedly benevolent God would make use of a process as seemingly unbenevolent as evolution. If Christianity in particular is correct, then we have the problem of evolution not always favoring traits we might consider good. How would you account for the fact that evolution as a "fallen" process far predates the Fall? The evolutionist doesn't really have the traditional mythology to fall back on to explain how unpleasant the natural world is. (Again, I really like John Haught's response to this, but it's still a tricky subject.)

Slightly off topic, I've come across arguments whereby what the hard sciences actually study isn't efficient causality at all, but formal causality (structures, patterns, the relations between interacting substances). Super interesting way to look at it.

 

[A_Thinker]

If you think you could design anything better than
God, then put in for his job.

I agree.

I note that the earth system (including life) has been humming along for millions of year now, though it may have needed a tune-up or oil-change along the way. Also, human beings routinely reach the working age of 80-120 years before they break down. Are there any man-made complex machines which last so long ?

Even if one were to speculate that the human life experience is not adequately designed to be everlastingly effective, perhaps consider that it is no longer meant to be.

I recall, early in the story of the Genesis, that God determined that men should live no longer that 120 years at the most. So, come on, arthritis, Alzheimer's, high blood pressure, etc.

Genesis 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; ... their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

 

[OldWiseGuy]

fair answer! Nothing wrong with not knowing the answer.

So, if we can't know either way by testing it then it seems we should lean the direction the evidence suggests. i.e. natural causation or "unintelligent design"

Until we have something pointing at "intelligent design" and/or an intelligent designer it makes more sense to go with the natural hypothesis. Yes?

The 'natural hypothesis' is "natural"?

If we can't "know' either way we should have faith that the way we believe is the truth.

 

[Speedwell]

Alright, cool. I hadn't realized you were in the Thomistic camp.

LOL! A high church Anglican educated in Catholic schools--I guess you'd have to expect it.

That gets around the mechanistic issues associated with evolution, but there's still the Problem of Evil and why a supposedly benevolent God would make use of a process as seemingly unbenevolent as evolution. If Christianity in particular is correct, then we have the problem of evolution not always favoring traits we might consider good.

What we regard as "unbenevolent" may not be seen the same way by God.

How would you account for the fact that evolution as a "fallen" process far predates the Fall?

My take on it is that"The Fall" didn't change anything about the natural world, it just changed our understanding of it. So evolution is not a "fallen" process, it's just a process.

The evolutionist doesn't really have the traditional mythology to fall back on to explain how unpleasant the natural world is. (Again, I really like John Haught's response to this, but it's still a tricky subject.)

Actually, it explains quite bit from our point of view. Taken strictly as history it's not much use for anything.

Slightly off topic, I've come across arguments whereby what the hard sciences actually study isn't efficient causality at all, but formal causality (structures, patterns, the relations between interacting substances). Super interesting way to look at it.

An interesting notion, but as a devout Nominalist I might have a different take on it than you.

 

[Neogaia777]

fair answer! Nothing wrong with not knowing the answer.

So, if we can't know either way by testing it then it seems we should lean the direction the evidence suggests. i.e. natural causation or "unintelligent design"

Until we have something pointing at "intelligent design" and/or an intelligent designer it makes more sense to go with the natural hypothesis. Yes?

I like to be open to and consider both possibilities, that the anomalies could be design or by design, or they may not be...

Other than that, I still believe in intelligent design either way, for there are many other things that point to it for me...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

fair answer! Nothing wrong with not knowing the answer.

So, if we can't know either way by testing it then it seems we should lean the direction the evidence suggests. i.e. natural causation or "unintelligent design"

And what does the evidence suggest...? And what is natural causation...? Nature causes something, or what...? And, lastly, I don't conclude that at all...

Until we have something pointing at "intelligent design" and/or an intelligent designer it makes more sense to go with the natural hypothesis. Yes?

If you wish... but it seems more like "carnal" hypothesis to me...

God Bless!