Unlocking the Mystery of Life
#21
GrumpyTroll Wrote:I do not deny that the magnificence of nature leads the contemplating believer to praise that of God, only that it does not contain definitive proof of His existence, though it could bring the sincere agnostic to belief in the Creator.
  
Well, like I said, you'd have to argue with the Pope and Scripture and Aquinas and the Fathers of the Church about that one.

Quote:The proteins are arranged in the DNA thanks to DNA polymerase, which is programmed to add nucleotides to the synthesised strand corresponding to that paired with the nucleotide of the transcribed brand, with nucleotides taken from the environment in which the cell is situated (if I recall correctly!).
 
"Programmed" denotes a "Programmer" -- and describing the mechanism doesn't explain the mechanism or its origins.
 
Quote:That is because natural selection is an adequate theory for the explanation of biodiversity.
 
Many scientists disagree with you.
 
Quote:Is there much verification of natural selection besides the biodiversity that we see today?
 
You can see what happens with antibiotics, for ex., and their effect on bacteria.

 
Quote:I do not believe that positing a Designer is arbitrary, I believe that it is done somewhat arbitrarily in the course of scientific explanation of observed phenomena; neither do I believe that positing a Designer serves to halt scientific inquiry per se, but only when it is used to try to explain away things that can be very well accounted for by science.
 
At some point, science will have to deal with the problems of information and first causes. A wall is built in to the discipline because no scientist was there at the beginning to see what original organism was there to somehow pass on its genetic information and create a population for natural selection to act upon. I don't see how saying that some organism arose or possibly out of a primordial soup is any more "scientific" than saying that an Intelligence possibly created organisms. Neither can be proven in a lab somewhere.
 
Quote:They did not, however, try to explain observed events both through and as a conclusive proof of the existence of God.
 
They saw nature as evidence for God -- the saying of which today being considered "unscientific."
 
Quote: Allow me to quote from the very article you cite as an example of an atheist attempt to explain God away:
Quote:When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak.
As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999). Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.
I would have to say that Mr Miller has summed up my position quite well, and, as I said in my initial post in this thread, science can be seen as ad maiorem Dei gloriam; that is certainly my point of view as a believer.
 
Design is a possibility -- but not "intelligent design"? If there is design in nature, there is a Designer, and if there is a Designer, calling His design "not intelligent" is sort of blasphemous, non? Darwinism -- as opposed to mere natural selection -- posits that there is no design at all, and I am at a loss in seeing how there could be more "grandeur" in a Godless view of the universe.
 

Quote:I see no contradiction there; I should have emphasised the term definitely. Science always can put forward a hypothesis for the explanation of a given observation; and as it only posits hypotheses, it cannot definitely explain everything (as its critics say it claims), nor does it pretend do (as falsifiability is a scientific principle).
 
I know that science can't definitely explain everything, but it is so that some scientists think it does. Insofar as intelligent design is seen as impossible by some, it shows that there are some hypotheses they won't posit -- not because they are impossible or untrue (we both know God exists and He is the Creator) but because they won't recognize a wall when they see one.
 
Quote:Scientists do not believe that it is unscientific to “consider the possibility that God exists”, simply because the existence of God does not belong to the domain of science; they do believe that natural phenomena can be explained by natural mechanisms, and some believe that these natural mechanisms are laws put in place by God.
 
The existence of science is the domain of God, if you know what I mean. 
 
Quote:I believe that God exists and that all that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God, but nowhere did I posit that science must act as if that cannot possibly be true; I say only that science must explain natural events independently of this truth, because God has written the laws of nature when He created the Universe.
 
And if He created the universe and its laws with a design in Mind, and if He is Intelligent, then why would it be unscientific to recognize intelligent design as a possibility, with the knowledge that science doesn't have to explain origins in the first place -- which it can't do -- but simply describe and manipulate the mechanisms and organisms that exist? If a scientist recognizes that God is intelligent and a Creator, then how is he supposed to "do science" at all if (a big but common "if") science is pretty much defined as pretending He doesn't exist? If both science and theology are attempts at understanding Truth, and given the law of non-contradiction, why is there such an uncessary, perceived chasm between the two these days?
 
Quote:You would have to tell that to the writer of the article in question. [Image: wink.gif]
 
Fair enough on that one. But that sort of thinking is typical on the part of many Darwinists. There is a lot of mischaracterization, sad to say....

Reply
#22
I am hastily typing this message, given the little time that I have today, to inform you that DominusTecum’s post led me to consider my previous messages in the light of the dogmas of our Holy Faith; I therefore retract any previous statements contrary to them, believe that God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things, and that the Existence of God can be proved by means of causality (other than out of motion, an argument effectively disproved by modern physics).

I shall only add that no theistic evolutionist is calling God’s design unintelligent, quite the contrary.

Reply
#23
GrumpyTroll Wrote:...the Existence of God can be proved by means of causality (other than out of motion, an argument effectively disproved by modern physics)...

I am no physicist, but the argument of Aristotle (St. Thomas, et cetera) dealing with motion, and the absolute need for a Prime Mover who is himself not moved, is pretty simple - and sound as a pound.
Reply
#24
OLRansom Wrote:
GrumpyTroll Wrote:...the Existence of God can be proved by means of causality (other than out of motion, an argument effectively disproved by modern physics)...

I am no physicist, but the argument of Aristotle (St. Thomas, et cetera) dealing with motion, and the absolute need for a Prime Mover who is himself not moved, is pretty simple - and sound as a pound.

Aristotelian physics have been refuted for several hundred years now, and the idea that a happening requires a cause has itself been refuted in physics on a scale other than that of classical mechanics. From the article (emphasis mine):
Quote: In his lectures on cause and chance in physics, Max Born (1949) stated three assumptions that dominated physics until the twentieth century:
  1. "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect."
  2. "Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect."
  3. "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact."
Relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience. After analyzing them in terms of modern physics, Born concluded "chance has become the primary notion, mechanics an expression of its quantitative laws, and the overwhelming evidence of causality with all its attributes in the realm of ordinary experience is satisfactorily explained by the statistical laws of large numbers."
The argument from motion can no longer be seen as valid.
Reply
#25
Chance is for the heathen, my friend. From Heliotropium, p.6:

"...Having carefully laid this foundation, we arrive at the following conclusion:--Since whatever is done in the world happens through the Permission or Command of God, it is our duty to receive everything as from the Hand of God, so conforming our will to His most holy Will, through all things, and in all things, as to ascribe nothing to accident, chance, or fortune..."

No contingent being created itself, nor do any of them sustain their own existence for even one moment. There is only one Being, and He alone exists necessarily. A First Cause is of such an absolute necessity for all contingent beings (as well as for space and time) that it boggles the mind that any man of reason, let alone one who has the Faith, could postulate otherwise (which I am aware may not be your present position). Not only do we need God to move, we need Him in order to possess a being that can move.

Btw, Heliotropium is among the best books a man could ever read. Thank you very much for the information you provided. One note: among other things, you are presuming that the Theory of Relativity is correct. God and His holy angels guard and guide you.
Reply
#26
GrumpyTroll Wrote:...the idea that a happening requires a cause has itself been refuted in physics on a scale other than that of classical mechanics...

For every effect there is a cause. It appears you see it otherwise, but I am unable to discern the cause for this inexplicable effect - but I know it exists.[Image: wink.gif]  Btw, I guess you would know what I mean if I use words like 'proximate' and 'remote' in connection with the idea of causality.
Reply
#27
VoxClamantis Wrote:The scientific method is just a tool of science, which is a sub-set of philosophy, which is a sub-set of theology.

Just a little note, Vox:

Scientia
, in Latin, simply means "knowledge" (which you likely know). Philosophy is itself a science, as is theology. Philosophy is the Queen of all sciences which have some aspect of the natural order for their object, although theology surpasses it immeasurably (simultaneously being supported by it) once revelation is taken into account. This relation of theology to philosophy is due to the object proper to each. One might say theology is the Queen, philosophy the handmaid.  Ecce ancilla Domini...

God and His holy angels guard and guide you.
Reply
#28
OLRansom Wrote:No contingent being created itself, nor do any of them sustain their own existence for even one moment. There is only one Being, and He alone exists necessarily. A First Cause is of such an absolute necessity for all contingent beings (as well as for space and time) that it boggles the mind that any man of reason, let alone one who has the Faith, could postulate otherwise (which I am aware may not be your present position). Not only do we need God to move, we need Him in order to possess a being that can move.

Btw, Heliotropium is among the best books a man could ever read. Thank you very much for the information you provided. One note: among other things, you are presuming that the Theory of Relativity is correct. God and His holy angels guard and guide you.

Thank you for your reply.

Scientific theories are referred to as such, because they make falsifiable and verifiable predictions about phenomena as yet unobserved, and they will therefore be so called however accurate they may be as models; the term theory in no way implies some great uncertainty about the predictions made by a model.

Besides, why deny the theory of relativity or that of quantum mechanics? Do you only trust “science” that allows you to hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible or philosophical demonstrations as they were made several millennia ago? Modern physics in no way refutes the proof of the existence of God from causality entirely, but only out of motion, so why do you insist on it being true?
Reply
#29
OLRansom Wrote:
GrumpyTroll Wrote:...the idea that a happening requires a cause has itself been refuted in physics on a scale other than that of classical mechanics...

For every effect there is a cause. It appears you see it otherwise, but I am unable to discern the cause for this inexplicable effect - but I know it exists.[Image: wink.gif] Btw, I guess you would know what I mean if I use words like 'proximate' and 'remote' in connection with the idea of causality.

If motion requires a cause, it is certainly not another body in motion.

PS: I have left another message on the previous page, in case you are looking at the last post in the thread as of this one being it.
Reply
#30
GrumpyTroll Wrote:Scientific theories are referred to as such, because they make falsifiable and verifiable predictions about phenomena as yet unobserved, and they will therefore be so called however accurate they may be as models; the term theory in no way implies some great uncertainty about the predictions made by a model.

I agree, but the "as yet unobserved" portion is paramount, imo.  For all the merits of any theory, it is still just a theory.

Quote:Besides, why deny the theory of relativity or that of quantum mechanics?

You are again presuming, although unwittingly. This time the presumption is that I actually deny said theory. Nowhere in my post did I say such a thing.

Quote:Do you only trust “science” that allows you to hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible or philosophical demonstrations as they were made several millennia ago?

Divine Catholic Faith makes it impossible to 'accept' so-called "scientific truths" that contradict the literal interpretation of Holy Writ - when the section under discussion is to be taken literally. There are certain, objective principles involved when reading Holy Writ that render the oft-used "ultra-literalist" dig (which I imagine you do not mean to employ here) meaningless.

Quote:Modern physics in no way refutes the proof of the existence of God from causality entirely, but only out of motion, so why do you insist on it being true?

I believe this has a connection with your second post, so I will answer it in a moment.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)