Intelligent Design

[ThisTooShallPass]

The first four arguments of Aquinas: Unmoved mover, First cause, Contingency, and Degree are all based on an infinite regress of one sort or another. If I'm not mistaken I understand some of you believe that these arguments sort of apply as a regress to origin of the universe. The fifth Teleological argument seems to involve some kind of intelligence at the beginning of the regress.

No; they are based on the understanding that an infinite regress (in the sense of a regress that has no beginning, rather than one that has no end) is impossible.

Currently what happened just before the big bang is largely a mystery to science. If Aquinas or anyone else wants to label it as a regress to "God", I have a real problem with that. That same word "God" also applies to some entity that people fear, pray to, or worship. Religious people believe that God micromanages events such as hurricanes and death and we can beseech him to control events to our advantage.

As I've said before (several times now), the Unmoved Mover argument is not a temporal argument: Aquinas specifically rejected the notion that it was even knowable whether or not the universe had a beginning. It is an ontological argument: A proof that God's will is all that sustains the universe in each and every moment.

As far as people asking why God decided to destroy their house with a tornado, that is a Protestant superstition borne of their general ignorance and the terrible-to-non-existent efforts their churches make to catechize them. Most of Apathy's vapid stereotypes actually do apply to the way they see God. And they stem from an explicitly modern, irrational rejection of the classical Aristotelian-Thomist philosophical tradition, rooted, ultimately, in the conceptualist voluntarism and fideism of Ockham.

 

[Lagboltz]

No; they are based on the understanding that an infinite regress (in the sense of a regress that has no beginning, rather than one that has no end) is impossible.

Why do you say "no" and then state the obvious. I'm not sure of what hairs you are trying to split.

...A proof that God's will is all that sustains the universe in each and every moment.

You can believe in God's will at that level if you want, but since it has no meaning in science it is quite a moot point. Belief in that does not do anything to elucidate the dynamics of the physical universe as far as I'm concerned.

As far as your final paragraph, I'm glad we agree. I meant to address the question to those "vapid stereotypes" who do reject your brand of theology.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Why do you say "no" and then state the obvious. I'm not sure of what hairs you are trying to split.

I misread "The first four arguments of Aquinas: Unmoved mover, First cause, Contingency, and Degree are all based on an infinite regress of one sort or another" as a misapprehension of the argument. My apologies.

You can believe in God's will at that level if you want, but since it has no meaning in science it is quite a moot point. Belief in that does not do anything to elucidate the dynamics of the physical universe as far as I'm concerned.

That it is scientifically impossible to discern is irrelevant. Science is a field of philosophical inquiry concerned with material phenomenon. We are talking about a phenomenon that is definitionally immaterial. Therefore, science is insufficient to detect it.

 

[RoccoR]

ThisTooShallPass, et al,

I agree.

That it is scientifically impossible to discern is irrelevant. Science is a field of philosophical inquiry concerned with material phenomenon. We are talking about a phenomenon that is definitionally immaterial. Therefore, science is insufficient to detect it.

(COMMENT)

Yes, science may not be the proper tool to answer the question; but it may enlighten us and illuminate the topic.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[clarkatticus]

Didn't anyone see this one coming? ID debate ends up being a debate on the existance of a god? The class in school is called "science class", not philosophy, not religion. If these classes are to be added, so be it and teach ID until your child pukes Aquinis at the dinner table. In the meantime, evolution is science, Darwin, a trained minister knew the difference. ID is and always was a rehash of Aquinis' unmoved mover.

 

[ProudLefty]

Would someone please answer the simple question for me. Is ID, as a field of study, any more complicated than "*poof* and everything was there"? Isn't that the whole and total story line?

What is there to actually teach about ID?

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

ID is and always was a rehash of Aquinis' unmoved mover.

That is nonsense.

The Unmoved Mover argument is an argument from pure reason based on a few simple observations about the nature of causality. It is rooted in pre-Christian classical philosophy (Aristotle).

ID by contrast is a probabilistic argument which explicitly concedes the atheists' premise of a purely materialistic/mechanistic/deterministic universe, and simply argues that it is probabilistically unlikely for the present level of order and complexity in the universe to emerge without guidance. It's precisely because it is a materialist argument that nobody ever made any argument like it until William Paley in the 18th century.

Would someone please answer the simple question for me. Is ID, as a field of study, any more complicated than "*poof* and everything was there"? Isn't that the whole and total story line?

ID, strictly speaking, is not a "field of study" at all, it is simply an argument for the existence of God. It neither contradicts evolution nor supports it -- they are not even asking the same question.

It is obviously distinct from creationism in that the argument (a) makes allowance for the possibility of evolution (which would presumably by the means by which biological complexity would emerge) and (b) also makes allowance for the possibility that God doesn't exist at all (unlike the Unmoved Mover argument, which asserts that God necessarily exists, ID simply asserts that it is unlikely that He doesn't).

 

[Lagboltz]

Would someone please answer the simple question for me. Is ID, as a field of study, any more complicated than "*poof* and everything was there"? Isn't that the whole and total story line?

What is there to actually teach about ID?

That is a good question.

It seems the ID is promoted to be a field of study in the sense that the ID "scientists" spend a lot of effort trying to poke holes in evolution theory. For example they claim the human eye has too many disjoint parts to be caused by a slow creep of evolution. So a sufficiently indoctrinated high school teacher would spend class time explaining how the eye can't be derived from evolution. There are many other possible lectures such as abiogenesis (life arising from pools of crud) is not statistically possible. There is also Haldane's Dilemma which is a genetic based argument that humans could not have evolved from a common ancestor with apes in 5 million years. Therefore God did it. ID has no faith that science will answer these questions. It's scary.

ID's arguments are becoming obsolete for the development of the eye (a recent Scientific American article). As far as abiogenesis, new research has found that lipids could have formed early cell walls with enough simplicity and stability to overcome ID objections. The list goes on.

My feeling is that if ID arguments are put in high school text books, those textbooks will rapidly become outdated as science answers lingering ID objections.

 

[ProudLefty]

That is a good question....

My feeling is that if ID arguments are put in high school text books, those textbooks will rapidly become outdated as science answers lingering ID objections.

The scary part to me is what is already happening. Text books aren't getting outdated, they are regressing! Home schoolers are being given 19th century textbooks in 21st century covers, and that is what they are being taught as knowledge.

Here is an example:
http://www.robinsonbooks.com/

and more:

http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/

These students grow up ready to compete in a world of steamships, railroads, and American Imperialism.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are aware that the senses are fallible and people are capable of giving false testimony. The bible is an unreliable source if you are looking for the truth.

Testimony is the basis of both empiricism and the bible. Whatever criticism you have of the use of testimony would apply to both.



Out of time, more later.

 

[Apathy]

Testimony is the basis of both empiricism and the bible. Whatever criticism you have of the use of testimony would apply to both.



Out of time, more later.

Yeah? So what?

Furthermore some sources are more reliable than others (from an empirical sense). If you are going to argue that something empirically true you are going to need to more than unreliable testimony from people who stood to personally profit from giving it. You are going to need something that is independently observable by everyone.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are aware that the senses are fallible and people are capable of giving false testimony. The bible is an unreliable source if you are looking for the truth.

Ok more time now.

Is it unreliable? A scientific definition of reliability would be giving the same results time after time. Certainly for any particular translation the words are always the same. But, I suppose you meant that how you interpret the bible does not square with how you interpret the world. Perhaps the problem is with either your interpretation of the world or your interpretation of the Bible.

Fail, the difference being that scientific theories have been demonstrated to be true time and time again. Scientific experiments can be repeated however your pet deity has not been demonstrated even once.

Technically if it is a theory it has not been demonstrated. Additionally the history of science is ripe with examples of accepted scientific dogma that has been abandoned in favor of newer dogma. Yes some scientific experiments can be repeated. But not all scientific observations can be repeated. Some observations are of very rare events. That in no way makes the observations any less true just because they are rare. Which is exactly, I'll say it again, exactly, what is happening with observations recorded in the bible - many of them are observations of rare events- they are no less true for being rare.

Furthermore we do not "assume" that when we jump off of building we will fall we have seen it demonstrated time and time again that gravity will bring that person crashing to the ground.

Seeing gravity operate the same way again and again and then concluding that it will continue to operate the same way the next time someone jumps off of a building is exactly and precisely an assumption. This kind of assumption is called inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is the basis of scientific axioms and it starts with assumption.

If you believe the scientific theories are just assumption then I invite you to preform your own experiment. Drop a pen off of your table repeatedly and when it begins to float let me know.

Rolleyes? You are rolling your eyes at me? I think you should read this and then perhaps a few more articles about the nature of science.

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html

Is it possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow? It has risen every day since the beginning of recorded history! Yet on some day it will go supernova then on the following day it will not rise. I would add that on that following day a pen will not drop off a table and fall because it will have vaporized.

 

[Dr.Who]

evolution is science, Darwin, a trained minister knew the difference.

It is science at its best but it is treated with religeous fervor by quite a few in the day to day application. Perhaps it should e removed from the science curriculum until it is taught as science? In fact, in his first draft Darwin specifically stated that evolution took place without any influence from God - very unscientific! Tsk. He obviously did not know the difference in his first draft. Nor do many of his followers today.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yeah? So what?

Furthermore some sources are more reliable than others (from an empirical sense). If you are going to argue that something empirically true you are going to need to more than unreliable testimony from people who stood to personally profit from giving it. You are going to need something that is independently observable by everyone.

Are you willing to apply that standard to all of science? Many scientists disagree with each other and often with earlier statements of their own, every scientist who depends on funding stands to profit, and quite a few scientific observations are so complicated, expensive or just plain rare that they have never been observed by anyone but the original observer and may never be.

The failure of science to meet your criteria at times does not mean it is wrong nor does the failure of the bible to meet your criteria at times mean it is wrong. If we are going to say that either is wrong we need better reasons.

 

[Openmind]

Testimony is the basis of both empiricism and the bible. Whatever criticism you have of the use of testimony would apply to both.



Out of time, more later.

Well, I would say that, if I had to, I would probably take the testimony of a scientist today to that of a sheep herder 4000 years ago, especially if the sheep herder's testimony had gone through the mouth of another 50 or 60 people before being recorded and then translated a few hundreds (or thousands) times in several languages, some of which have been dead for about 3000 years!

I'm not sure if a court today would take one of those "holy men" from the Bible testimony TODAY to determine a case!

But. . .I guess to each its own!