Is there philosophical evidence for design?

[rigadoon]

Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna has recently defended the proposition that reason (apart from faith) can grasp the reality of design in nature. See "The Designs of Science" in First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0 ... nborn.html

On philosophy:

In short, my argument was based on careful examination of the evidence of everyday experience; in other words, on philosophy.

Philosophy is the "science of common experience" which provides our most fundamental and most certain grasp on reality.

To grasp reality as it is, we must return to our pre-scientific and post-scientific knowledge, the tacit knowledge that pervades science, the knowledge that, when critically examined and refined, we call philosophy.

Prior to both science and theology is philosophy, the "science of common experience."

On design and purpose:

The Church "proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things."

"Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

My argument was based neither on theology nor modern science nor "intelligent design theory."
[/img]

[ENIGMA]

The Church "proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things."

$100 says otherwise

[Nirvana-Eld]

Rigadoon, Im not quite sure what you point is... is it that a use of philosophy comes to the conclusion of a design? And also, is your idea of Intelligent Design one in which life is "so complex" that it had to have been designed? And also does you idea of design conflict with the theory of evolution?

I will assume the answers are yes, since that is the generic stance taken by the proponents of Intelligent Design.

The Church "proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things."

Hooray this is what the Church says. I'm sorry but I fail to see the purpose of this quote other than to affirm the standard Church stance of the issue.

"Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

Allow me to offer a counter quote from yours truly.

"Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain any possible evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

Would you agree with this? Also normally to deduce anything with logic you start with an observation and after analyzing you come to a conclusion. I would like to stress the point that I.D. takes and irrelevant observation (stff is really complex). Analyzes it awkwardly and incorrectly (it is impossible for comlexity to be sponateous or random). And comes to a way outta left feild conclusion (God designed all stuff). The logic simply falls apart when you look at it in this light.

[rigadoon]

Rigadoon, Im not quite sure what you point is... is it that a use of philosophy comes to the conclusion of a design? And also, is your idea of Intelligent Design one in which life is "so complex" that it had to have been designed? And also does you idea of design conflict with the theory of evolution?

I will assume the answers are yes, since that is the generic stance taken by the proponents of Intelligent Design.

This is not about science or evolution or Intelligent Design. The Cardinal is arguing that philosophy, using only reason and common experience, discerns evidence for design in nature.

The Church "proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things."

Hooray this is what the Church says. I'm sorry but I fail to see the purpose of this quote other than to affirm the standard Church stance of the issue.

The assertion is that this conclusion is made on philosophical grounds. The Cardinal is not here to argue his position so the question is whether others have reason to agree or disagree.

"Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

Allow me to offer a counter quote from yours truly.

"Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain any possible evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

Would you agree with this? Also normally to deduce anything with logic you start with an observation and after analyzing you come to a conclusion. I would like to stress the point that I.D. takes and irrelevant observation (stff is really complex). Analyzes it awkwardly and incorrectly (it is impossible for comlexity to be sponateous or random). And comes to a way outta left feild conclusion (God designed all stuff). The logic simply falls apart when you look at it in this light.

So you're saying the explanation that evidence for design in biology is only apparent design resulting from a stochastic process -- this is ideology? Or any other explanation of possible evidence for design is also ideology?

[Nirvana-Eld]

This is not about science or evolution or Intelligent Design. The Cardinal is arguing that philosophy, using only reason and common experience, discerns evidence for design in nature.

Do you have any evidence though? All your saying now is a mere claim. You are stating and proclaiming an outlook on nature, but where's your evidence that makes this relevant? I'm glad you able to use reason and common experience to come to a conclusion but show me the reason you use to come to this conclusion and the "common experience" I have obviously overlooked.

The assertion is that this conclusion is made on philosophical grounds. The Cardinal is not here to argue his position so the question is whether others have reason to agree or disagree.

Again I cannot agree or disagree when I have no path of reason or logic to follow. I'm not going to take you word for it that you have all the evidence you need to come to this conclusion if I can't see it.

So you're saying the explanation that evidence for design in biology is only apparent design resulting from a stochastic process -- this is ideology? Or any other explanation of possible evidence for design is also ideology?

By stochastic Im assuming you mean basic guesswork. If this is the case then yes. You cannot take a random observation in biology, such as complexity, and come to a random conclusion such as God. The logic is nearly impossible to follow. And again, Just show me your logistics so I can really follow what your putting forward. Cause right now I only hear claims with no proof.

[rigadoon]

You are stating and proclaiming an outlook on nature, but where's your evidence that makes this relevant? I'm glad you able to use reason and common experience to come to a conclusion but show me the reason you use to come to this conclusion and the "common experience" I have obviously overlooked.

Again, I can't speak for the Cardinal so I'm asking if others have reason to agree or disagree with him.

I found this on the web:

http://academic.regis.edu/mghedott/schonborn2.htm
Here is a translation of a lecture Cardinal Christoph Schönborn delivered in October in Vienna on creation and evolution.
...
Allow me to cite a somewhat lengthy passage from Chapter 13 of the Book of Wisdom, an Old Testament text from sometime at the end of the second or the beginning of the first century B.C.:

1 "For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;

2 "But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods.

3 "Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them.

4 "Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them.

5 "For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen.

6 "But yet, for these the blame is less; For they indeed have gone astray perhaps, though they seek God and wish to find him.

7 "For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair.

8 "But again, not even these are pardonable.

9 "For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its Lord?" (Book of Wisdom, 13:1-9)

This classic text is one of the bases for the conviction, subsequently made dogma, i.e., affirmed as an explicit principle of faith as taught by the Church, in the First Vatican Council of 1870: that the light of human reason enables us to know that there is a Creator and that this Creator guides the world. ("Dei Filius," Chapter 2; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 36)

[CJK]

This is not about science or evolution or Intelligent Design. The Cardinal is arguing that philosophy, using only reason and common experience, discerns evidence for design in nature.

Surely there are designs in nature, but no apparent designer. Reason evokes philosophy, you are poisoning the well.

The cardinal is using pseudo-philosophy. Although the origins of life is a huge mystery, this does not entail that what you see happening around you was the work of a creator God.

[QED]

rigadoon -- it strikes me that you and others (with the possible exception of the good Cardinal -- who may be unfamiliar with the science involved) are ignoring a very valid objection to the Theistic view of "apparent design" which arises from the known properties of Self Organising Systems. We have a wealth of good examples of these and I am having a really hard time getting anyone to join me in a serious debate over this issue. All I ever read is dogma about the limitless ability of God to fashion whatever he so chooses -- while all along I know of "designs" pouring out of a simple logical feedback loops. I don't think that these particular "designs" are coming from a conscious Deity so why should I automatically think that of all other examples apparent design that might be seen in nature?

I hope you can find the time to look at some currently under-subscribed topics that address this matter:

Can designs be evolved without intellectual contamination?
Spot the design, for fun and profit.

Of course it's always possible that people are ignoring the objections raised here because they are puerile and naive. Very well, if that is the case then it should be a trivial matter to explain the fallacy.

[rigadoon]

rigadoon -- it strikes me that you and others (with the possible exception of the good Cardinal -- who may be unfamiliar with the science involved) are ignoring a very valid objection to the Theistic view of "apparent design" which arises from the known properties of Self Organising Systems. We have a wealth of good examples of these and I am having a really hard time getting anyone to join me in a serious debate over this issue. All I ever read is dogma about the limitless ability of God to fashion whatever he so chooses -- while all along I know of "designs" pouring out of a simple logical feedback loops. I don't think that these particular "designs" are coming from a conscious Deity so why should I automatically think that of all other examples apparent design that might be seen in nature?

When Edison invented the electric light bulb, he went through many trials until he found something that worked. That is, Edison designed the electric light bulb through a process of trial and error according to the purpose he had in mind. Automating this process through feedback loops is one way to speed up the process but the idea is the same.

"Self-organisation" is a trendy term but what does it really mean? In addition to the anthropomorphic use of "self", it seems to be just another type of organization (or organisation). A few quotes from the Wikipedia article:

What Descartes introduced was the idea that the ordinary laws of nature tend to produce organization.

Self-organization, despite its intuitive simplicity as a concept, has proven notoriously difficult to define and pin down formally or mathematically.

It should also be noted that, the farther a phenomenon is removed from physics, the more controversial the idea of self-organization as understood by physicists becomes. Also, even when self-organization is clearly present, attempts at explaining it through physics or statistics are usually criticized as reductionistic.

Similarly, when ideas about self-organization originate in, say, biology or social science, the farther one tries to take the concept into chemistry, physics or mathematics, the more resistance is encountered, usually on the grounds that it implies direction in fundamental physical processes.

The first rule of empirical science should be to take appearances (phenomena) seriously. One should doubt appearances only after compelling evidence (other phenomena) leads one to that conclusion. Otherwise, concepts such as "apparent design" can easily turn into nothing more than a deconstructionist reading of the universe.

[QED]

That is, Edison designed the electric light bulb through a process of trial and error according to the purpose he had in mind. Automating this process through feedback loops is one way to speed up the process but the idea is the same.

That's fine, you've described a very simple to understand and non-controversial process. There are however a couple of very awkward words here in "purpose in mind". I suggest, however, that we don't need to consider these terms: you have agreed that "trial and error" can search out pathways to design solutions. So the argument becomes "what can do the trying?", and "what can reveal the error?". My argument then (by pointing to Genetic Algorithms) is that many things can. Therefore the simple fact that the process we've described here has the ability to deliver "design" means that we cannot assume anything about the nature of the designer. Formerly design was felt to be something that only Man or God could do. Demonstrating that other things can lead to design should dispel this fallacy.

"Self-organisation" is a trendy term but what does it really mean? In addition to the anthropomorphic use of "self", it seems to be just another type of organization (or organisation). A few quotes from the Wikipedia article...

But what is the substance of these quotes? That some people's philosophies are at odds with the implication of "direction in fundamental physical processes"? There are all sorts of "directions" in physical processes, logic underwrites every interaction and many are non-reversible. I wonder if you are taking a step back here and arguing that the logic of "trial and error" might be the tool of creation?

The first rule of empirical science should be to take appearances (phenomena) seriously. One should doubt appearances only after compelling evidence (other phenomena) leads one to that conclusion. Otherwise, concepts such as "apparent design" can easily turn into nothing more than a deconstructionist reading of the universe.

Maybe you are then! That's fine. I don't have many problems with such an interpretation. However I would caution you that the "logic" involved is inflexible and this has implications for any "creative freedoms" that might be assumed. I would think at best it is only compatible with a creator who sets things up and then leaves them to their own devices.