Design not divine? (Origins)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 17:47 (4442 days ago)

DAVID (under The bacterial flagellum): Primary flagship for intelligent design. A fair number of the proteins involved are not homologous from predecessors. Several individual knockouts remove function. Irreducible complexity?-http://www.scribd.com/doc/106728402/The-Bacterial-Flagellum-Adds up to requiring a number of successive lucky mutations or intelligent design. Any comments?-DAVID (under Review: Mind and Cosmos): Mind and Cosmos Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False by Thomas Nagel, Oxford Press, 2012.-This is one weird book. An atheist philosopher claims that mind and consciousness cannot be explained by Neo-Darwinism. He proposes a natural teleological mechanism yet to be discovered. He admits that choosing a universal intelligence is a logical choice, but his atheism does not permit him to do that. To paraphrase: Hopefully a natural teleology can be found to be present in the order of things.-I've put these two posts together, because between them they seem to me to encapsulate the whole argument. The flagellum, just like the brain, and just like mind and consciousness, presents us with what seems to me to be incontrovertible evidence of intelligent design, but that does not provide us with incontrovertible evidence of a divine designer. Over and over again we are confronted by the fact that cells act inventively and cooperatively to create new organs and new organisms. That is the whole basis of evolution (with natural selection deciding which of these innovations survive), and for me it knocks on the head the now seemingly absurd idea of random mutations as the driving force of innovation. Mutations, yes, but random, no. As the environment changed throughout history, the cells adapted and innovated ... i.e. not only in order to survive (= adaptation), but also in order to test new possibilities (= innovation).-I haven't read Nagel's book, but the idea of a "natural teleology" fits in perfectly with the above scenario. It's the living cell that provides the intelligence underlying evolution. And what confronts all of us then is the question of how this hugely complex, intelligent, inventive mechanism arose in the first place. -This is where faith alone can provide an answer. Either the mechanism came about through an unbelievable and inconceivable sequence of coincidences, or there is a conscious intra- (perhaps also extra-) universal intelligence infinitely greater than our own, whose existence is totally inexplicable and for me also inconceivable.
 
As regards the cosmos, we know that our universe formulated conditions suitable for life on Earth. That's all we know. Same problem as above.-If you have enough faith to believe in a self-generated universal intelligence able to create macrocosms and microcosms, you can also have enough faith to believe in a self-generated set of conditions and a self-generated cellular intelligence. Alternatively, you can join me on the fence of the faithless.

Design not divine?

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 18:22 (4442 days ago) @ dhw

If you have enough faith to believe in a self-generated universal intelligence able to create macrocosms and microcosms, you can also have enough faith to believe in a self-generated set of conditions and a self-generated cellular intelligence. Alternatively, you can join me on the fence of the faithless.-I can only apply faith in one direction. How does anything self-generate? From nothing? I firmly believe in causation. One action causes another. The lights come on becuae I flipped the switch, but prior to that a plant generated the electricity. Prior to that an electrician wired my house. and so on. There HAS TO BE a first cause which put all that intelligent information into the cells that adapt to whatever. I don't like your picket fence.

Design not divine?

by dhw, Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 19:17 (4441 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: If you have enough faith to believe in a self-generated universal intelligence able to create macrocosms and microcosms, you can also have enough faith to believe in a self-generated set of conditions and a self-generated cellular intelligence. Alternatively, you can join me on the fence of the faithless.-DAVID: I can only apply faith in one direction. How does anything self-generate? From nothing? I firmly believe in causation. One action causes another. The lights come on becuae I flipped the switch, but prior to that a plant generated the electricity. Prior to that an electrician wired my house. and so on. There HAS TO BE a first cause which put all that intelligent information into the cells that adapt to whatever. I don't like your picket fence.-I agree that nothing can come from nothing. How does an intelligent creator self-generate? Your answer is that it doesn't ... because it's the eternal "first cause". How does a universe self-generate (not necessarily ours but whatever preceded ours during the same for ever and ever in which you believe your own first cause has existed)? The answer is that it doesn't ... because it's the eternal "first cause". A consciously creative forever (God) is no more credible than an unconsciously creative forever (the universe). We cannot conceive of either, but many people have faith in one OR the other. I can understand very well why you don't like my picket fence, since life and human intelligence are too complex not to have been designed. Atheists don't like it either, since one can hardly argue that life and human intelligence are too complex not to have been designed, and yet at the same time claim that a living intelligence which designed life and human intelligence didn't require a designer. Nobody loves us agnostics, but we agnostics love everybody - except the fundamentalists, of course!

Design not divine?

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 21:15 (4440 days ago) @ dhw


> I agree that nothing can come from nothing. How does an intelligent creator self-generate? Your answer is that it doesn't ... because it's the eternal "first cause". How does a universe self-generate (not necessarily ours but whatever preceded ours during the same for ever and ever in which you believe your own first cause has existed)? The answer is that it doesn't ... because it's the eternal "first cause". A consciously creative forever (God) is no more credible than an unconsciously creative forever (the universe). We cannot conceive of either, but many people have faith in one OR the other. -"We cannot conceive" is your view of things. But you agree nothing can come from nothing, then therefore there was always something. Our universe was designed for us, from all evidence. Only intelligence can create design. Therefore, first cause is intelligence. Simple logic.

Design not divine?

by dhw, Thursday, September 27, 2012, 20:53 (4439 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: "We cannot conceive" is your view of things. But you agree nothing can come from nothing, then therefore there was always something. Our universe was designed for us, from all evidence. Only intelligence can create design. Therefore, first cause is intelligence. Simple logic.-I agree that there was always something, but your simple first cause logic only stops where you want it to stop. If we take the universe to be everything that has ever existed for all eternity (as opposed to our universe, which may have had a finite beginning if the big bang theory is correct), the atheistic argument is that we have an eternity and infinity of possible combinations, which eventually is bound to come up with what looks like design. First cause is therefore an impersonal but ever changing universe with infinite potential, so why invent an eternal intelligence when unconscious eternity and infinity can potentially come up with the same result?-I have no quarrel with your argument. I have no quarrel with their argument. We have absolutely no way of knowing which is correct, and without faith it is therefore impossible to give one explanation precedence over the other. Hence agnosticism. Simple logic.

Design not divine?

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 27, 2012, 21:12 (4439 days ago) @ dhw


> I have no quarrel with your argument. I have no quarrel with their argument. We have absolutely no way of knowing which is correct, and without faith it is therefore impossible to give one explanation precedence over the other. Hence agnosticism. Simple logic.-My answer is how does a simple bundle of energy come up with all the complexity we are finding in living organisms? It requires intelligence. The odds against serendipity are tremendous

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum