Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: An Argument from C. S. Lewis for Intelligent Design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

John G. West writes:

November 29. Perhaps best known for his Chronicles of Narnia and works of Christian apologetics including Mere Christianity, Lewis was a first-rate scholar of medieval and renaissance English literature, and a first-rate mind on many topics.

Photo: C. S. Lewis, by Asar Studios/Alamy (Photo by Hans Wild/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images).

As I discuss in my book The Magician’s Twin, Lewis frequently examined the impact of modern science on human life, including debates over evolution and what has become known as intelligent design.

In the waning days of World War II, Lewis published two little-known essays advancing a positive argument for intelligent design: “Is Theology Poetry?” and “Who Was Right — Dream Lecturer or Real Lecturer?” Both essays were published in 1945, although the first was originally delivered as a talk to the Socratic Society at Oxford University in November 1944. The second essay was later republished under the title “Two Lectures.”

“Universal Evolutionism”

According to Lewis in these essays, “universal evolutionism” has schooled us to think that in nature complicated functional things naturally arise from cruder and less complicated things. Oak trees come from acorns, owls from eggs, and human beings from embryos.

But for Lewis, this “modern acquiescence in universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion” that defies the actual data of the natural world.

In each of the aforementioned cases, complex living things arose from even more complex living things. Every acorn originally came from an oak tree. Every owl’s egg came from an actual owl. Every human embryo required two full-grown adult human beings.

We see the same pattern in human culture. The “evolution” from coracles to steamships, or from one of the early locomotives (the “Rocket)” to modern train engines, requires a cause that is greater than either steamships or train engines. Wrote Lewis: “We love to notice that the express [train] engine of today is the descendant of the ‘Rocket’; we do not equally remember that the ‘Rocket’ springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself — namely, a man of genius.”

Lewis made clear the relevance of this truth for understanding the wonderful functional complexity we see throughout nature: “You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real Originator of the natural order?”

An Explicit Argument for ID

This is explicitly an argument for intelligent design, and Lewis implies that this line of reasoning was central to his own disavowal of materialism. “On these grounds and others like them one is driven to think that whatever else may be true, the popular scientific cosmology at any rate is certainly not.”

This argument for intelligent design does not in and of itself lead to the Christian God according to Lewis. But it opens the door to considering the alternatives to materialism of “philosophical idealism” and “theism,” and from there Lewis believed that one may well progress to full-blooded Christian theism after further reflection.

Evolution News
Comments
SA “Instead, you’ve offered philosophical arguments in opposition to other philosophical arguments, but then you demanded that the philosophical arguments you oppose must be supported by math or science. But you have not supported your own philosophical argument with math, science or observational data.” Ouch!! Vividvividbleau
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
JVL, first, a useful understanding of math is that it is [the study of] the logic of structure and quantity. That logic is an aspect of logic of being, and as being is present in reality. Indeed a core is framework to any possible world, is necessary and universal. This is the root of the power of mathematics. However these are issues of foundations of math which are essentially philosophical, indeed logic of being is a way to say ontology. There is a sense in which by the nature of being and tied reasoning, philosophy is the root discipline. Of course epistemology and logic are also philosophical, pervasive matters: how we reason, how we warrant, how we know. Neither math nor physics are autonomous, nor other disciplines in general insofar as they address these themes. This is before one gets any particular worldview. KFkairosfocus
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
"the lab rat demonstration – which you never fail" Love it. Andrewasauber
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
. Good grief. More lectures from JVL on logic and reason?
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available. (…) And after you are asked “Then who is the designer in your signal from space”, suddenly realizing that you cannot answer that question without clearly demonstrating the double-standard in your reasoning, you reply: JVL: There isn’t one. (thud)
(,,,)
You have been given an inference to design in biology that you cannot refute. In fact, you were eventually forced to agree to the historical and experimental facts that support the inference. But you chose to deny that inference based on the use of a common logical fallacy. You denied the inference not based on the actual experimental facts and data that researchers have documented in the literature, but by the undemonstrated opinions of authorities. You actually reasoned that recorded history and documented experimental results are invalidated by the mere speculation of authority figures. When this was brought to your attention, you simply repeated the fallacy, and can now do no more than repeat it again and again. This has all been documented in excruciating detail on these pages over a long period of time. The exchanges where you launch your fallacies have been copied and pasted (and put back in front of you) dozens of times. In fact, you have basically become is a lab rat – a demonstration – on how an educated ID critic repeatedly avoids and denies documented science and history that they cannot even begin to refute — universal physical evidence that is not even controversial. You then made matters worse by enthusiastically endorsing the exact same design inference that you completely deny to ID. This is the double-standard fallacy we’ve talked about many many times And here again, when confronted with this, you became patently dishonest – suggesting that you said things you never said. You were even willing to blow up your entire (enthusiastic) reasoning — just to avoid having to deal with the obvious contradictions you put on the table. And all along, you attack me in order to divert attention away from the incoherence in your reasoning. You admit to none of this. You admit to none of this, no matter how many times your own words are copied and pasted and put back in front of you. This is the lab rat demonstration – which you never fail, and will not fail the next time I put it in front of you (as we all will observe). If you respond to this comment with a defense of your reasoning, you will do it again.
Upright BiPed
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
It's like the people who regurgitate "People Over Principle", because it sounds good. "People Over Principle" IS a principle. So, you aren't following your own rules. Sigh Andrewasauber
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
I know Meyer is not a Muslim. I am just pointing out ID has nothing to do with religion. That doesn’t stop people spending a lot of time discussing it. So any discussions that are religious in nature or use religious references are not about ID. They can form a basis for beliefs but don’t use them as evidence about the nature of ID. The conclusions of ID flow from science and logic. Aside: Meyer believes deism and theism are different animals, not one a subset of the other. Is he the final arbiter of ID? No.jerry
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
"I cannot agree that man-made philosophy should take precedence over facts and data and mathematics." JVL, Deliberately obtuse. Andrewasauber
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: As KF points out in #73, science and mathematics are secondary to philosophy. Perhaps this is the place to part company, as it were. I cannot agree that man-made philosophy should take precedence over facts and data and mathematics. What's the point of doing science if it can be disregarded based on a philosophical stance? I can see a great use of philosophy as a way of interpreting reality, but not to define reality. That is a path I cannot take.JVL
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
SA (attn Jerry, et al, also PM1), Deism is properly a sub set of theism, albeit with peculiar doctrines regarding prophetic revelation and other miracles in human history. Islam is a religion pivoting on a claimed revelation in history -- as the shahada, its creedal confession, declares: there is but one God, known as Allah, and Mohammed of the Quraish is his prophet -- and so is committed to miracles in the here and now not just a remote past of creation. Second, generic ethical theism that simply sees God as inherently good utterly wise creator is obviously design friendly. So are varieties of Hinduism, pantheism, panentheism etc. So is the neo-stoic view that reality embeds a rational order that expresses itself in what is or comes to be. So is Platonism with the demiurge. And so forth. What is violently opposed is evolutionary materialism, whether the sophist form Plato summarised in The Laws Bk X or today's evo mat scientism and its fellow travellers. And yes, PM1, insofar as theistic naturalism seeks to follow the lead of evolutionary materialistic scientism, it would fall under the same self referential incoherence highlighted by Haldane 90+ years ago now. Clipping your linked:
Expansive naturalism is a defensible form of naturalism, and I argue that it should be embraced. So I agree with philosophical orthodoxy that we should be naturalists, but I deny that we should be scientistic naturalists. What does it mean to be a naturalist in this more liberal sense? The answer is complex, but a clue is to be found in what Griffin says in the context of defending a (liberally) naturalistic conception of value: ”[v]alues do not need any world except the ordinary world around us – mainly the world of humans and animals and happenings in their lives. An other-worldly realm of values just produces unnecessary problems about what it could possibly be and how we could learn about it’ (Value Judgement, p.44). So being a naturalist in this sense involves acknowledging that we are natural beings in a natural world (the only world there is), it gives expression to the demand that we avoid metaphysical flights of fancy, and ensures that our claims remain empirically grounded. Griffin adds that to defend such a picture one does not have to adopt a reductive form of naturalism. The expansive naturalist grants at least some of the items which are deemed ‘other-worldly’ by the lights of the scientistic naturalist – ‘other-worldly’ in this context referring to anything which exceeds the ambit of science. However, he stops short of God . . . . there is a form of theistic naturalism which can accommodate the distinction – and indeed, the relation – between God and nature . . . . we must reconfigure our understanding of the naturalism versus theism debate so as to allow that naturalism and theism can both be true.
That is, we here see a form of theistic evolutionism that specifically denies signs of intelligently directed configuration relevant to a design inference. Presumably, on the world of life, but as theistic issues are present, on cosmological fine tuning. With emergentism as a ghost haunting the seminar room. Elsewhere, Fiona Ellis writes: https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/why-i-am-not-atheist
The theist, on the other hand, rejects the assumption that reference to God is explanatorily redundant; although, pace Grayling, he does not think that theism is tantamount to ‘refut[ing] the findings of physics, chemistry and the biological sciences’ so as to justify the alternative claim ‘that the universe was created, and is run, by supernatural beings’. At least, he does not if he is remotely sensible. He accepts the findings of modern science and, consequently, does not think that the universe is run by supernatural beings. It is governed by nature’s laws; and in any case, God is not a being amongst beings, not even those of the supernatural variety – if, indeed, we are clear about what this description really amounts to. The theist thinks that there is more to reality than what the scientist comprehends: it is God-involving; God is the creator of everything, but His role as creator is compatible with the idea that things – including things like ourselves – do their own thing. So the idea that God ‘runs’ things is not intended to imply that we – and everything else – are just puppets on a cosmic string, nor that God functions as any kind of coercive force. Equally, this is not intended to be an alternative to scientific explanation. On the contrary, we are concerned with a dimension of reality which has absolutely nothing to do with science and is therefore entirely compatible with its findings. In saying this, the sensible theist is challenging that other familiar fundamentalist atheist – Richard Dawkins: God’s existence or non-existence is precisely not a scientific fact about the universe, and the presence or absence of a ‘creative super-intelligence’ (to use Dawkins’ preferred and perhaps predictable vocabulary) is not ‘unequivocally a scientific question’.
A lot of this turns on what scientism is and its deeply embedded materialism. It is obvious it fails the Haldane test of free rationality, which we extend to morally governed so responsible. It is self refuting as it is an allegedly rational theory that there are no rational frameworks to have credible theories. Going beyond, on moral government, design evidence and inference on signs in the cosmos there is excellent reason to acknowledge God. And, to recognise that he is a serious candidate necessary being. So, if not impossible of being, actual as framework to this and any possible world. KFkairosfocus
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1 @71,
But I’m much less confident that we could ascribe to God such person-like properties as intention and will.
Are you suggesting that the God who created humans with intention and will, does not have intention or will? How is your belief different than pantheism?
Where I really part ways from most people, including (I believe) everyone at Uncommon Descent, is that I reject the assumption that God must be supernatural, in the sense that God exists in a domain of reality separate from the one in which we live.
So, I'm sure you don't imagine that the God who/that created the reality in which we live exists only in that same reality, but rather, that this "natural" God is synonymous with our reality, right? This again seems like pantheism. The existence of the natural God, must have a presence and be detectable in the properties of natural subatomic entities such as quarks and leptons . . . or perhaps is synonymous with the Higgs boson, which is indeed sometimes called "the God particle." Does this make sense to you? -QQuerius
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Jerry @75,
For those pushing Christianity here, Stephen Meyer endorses Islam as a religion compatible with ID. Is Dr Meyer a Muslim?
Steven Meyer is correct in my opinion. For example, Muslim scholars came up with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. No, Steven Meyer is not Islamic.
Those trying to connect Christianity specifically with ID are doing ID a disservice
Baloney! As a Christian, I’m trying to SEPARATE scientific ID from Christianity. ID is a pragmatic, often validated paradigm that looks for purpose in complex structures that look designed. For example, there’s no assumption in ID that the majority of DNA is “junk” as first raised by Dr. Susumu Ohno and grimly held onto in the face of falsifying evidence by those whose faith is in Darwin. -QQuerius
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
JVL @70,
To say that a ‘timeless’ being is always in a present state but not that it ‘always existed’ . . . well, there doesn’t seem to be much science or mathematics behind such philosophical thinking.
Apparently, you’ve never heard of state diagrams. Your assertion merely points out your ignorance. -QQuerius
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
JVL
there doesn’t seem to be much science or mathematics behind such philosophical thinking.
As KF points out in #73, science and mathematics are secondary to philosophy. Science and math depend upon philosophical structures, so they would not be "behind" philosophy. Philosophy is required first - it's the primary thought. Then you derive science and math from your philosophical foundation. So, asking for the math behind the philosophy does not work. Notice, that you make an implied proposal: "This argument does not work unless there is math and science behind the philosophy". That's your claim (JVL's Claim 1). However, using your own standard: where is the math and science behind JVL's claim 1? You made a philosophical proposal, but it's not supported by math or science.
Even if I don’t really see the distinction, particularly because we have no observational data to show the distinction is possible.
I'll propose this as JVL's Claim #2: "The argument is not valid unless we have observational data to show the distinction." Again, where is the science or math to support JVL's Claim #2? Where is the observational data that would make your claim convincing? Instead, you've offered philosophical arguments in opposition to other philosophical arguments, but then you demanded that the philosophical arguments you oppose must be supported by math or science. But you have not supported your own philosophical argument with math, science or observational data.Silver Asiatic
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
PM1 @71 Regarding will and intent in God, that involves the motive or source of God's actions. The deist view would say that God's actions are strictly determined by His nature - so there's no freedom. But the theist will say that this puts limits on God, and if humans have freedom then we would have more freedom than God does. If humans don't have free will then we have the problem of determinism. A pagan, primitive view would say that God's actions are caused by something else (some created thing) but that's illogical since the created thing cannot cause God to create itself. The theistic view answers the origin of rational thought, which we see in human life, requires freedom. So, if the human rational mind has freedom to choose, then God would have the ultimate freedom and would therefore create by His will and not be determined or compelled by His nature. Regarding theistic naturalism, I had not encountered that before. The introduction in the link provided is good. It seems to be a means of moving beyond deism to a God that interacts with nature, and at the same time avoiding God as outside nature. I see problems with contingency and dependency in God since God would be part of a transient entity (nature). But maybe that is all worked out somehow in the details. From the link:
That is to say, I argue that there is a form of theistic naturalism which can accommodate the distinction – and indeed, the relation – between God and nature. The arguments are complex, they pose a challenge to the assumption that we are remotely clear about the question of being (to put the point in Heideggerian terms), and they are borrowed from those used by the secular expansive naturalist to defend his own position against scientistic naturalism.
She says that "the arguments are complex" and I would think they would need to be in order to work around some of the problems posed by classical theism. I see it as part of a theological journey ... from Atheism, which does not work on many levels, to Deism which is an improvement but lacking in the relationship between God and nature ... to this view of true God (not pantheistic) and nature, but combined somehow.Silver Asiatic
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Jerry
Stephen Meyer endorses Islam as a religion compatible with ID.
Many theologians would identify Islam is deistic, not theistic. Where is the science that tells Stephen Meyer about the nature and attributes of God? What gods does science eliminate from ID? I'd like to see the peer-reviewed scientific research on this.Silver Asiatic
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
KF
SA, a designer is not immediately equivalent to God.
I fully agree, so your comment here is directed at Stephen Meyer who stated that the designer is, indeed, immediately equivalent to God, and not any God but the God of theism with characteristics of Judaism and Christianity.
Certainly, life on earth could come from a molecular nanotech lab. Venter shows that in the early stages. Cosmos designer is where we go to see need for the transcendent.
Again, I agree but Meyer rejects this as an ID proposal. See my post #64. Meyer is stating, clearly, that the designer is God.
[The designer of ID is] not a deistic creator, not a space alien, but rather a theistic designer that has the attributes that Jews and Christians have always described to God. https://www.hoover.org/research/stephen-meyer-intelligent-design-and-return-god-hypothesis-1
As I said, this is a major change by an ID theorist. Identifying God and the nature of God (non-deist) moves ID out of science and into religion. That's not my thinking, but Stephen Meyer's. He explains the same thing in his God Hypothesis book.Silver Asiatic
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
For those pushing Christianity here, Stephen Meyer endorses Islam as a religion compatible with ID. Is Dr Meyer a Muslim? Those trying to connect Christianity specifically with ID are doing ID a disservicejerry
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
SA, a designer is not immediately equivalent to God. Certainly, life on earth could come from a molecular nanotech lab. Venter shows that in the early stages. Cosmos designer is where we go to see need for the transcendent. KFkairosfocus
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
JVL, the core of math is eternal and necessary being. So, mathematics is implicated. As our world is credibly empirically finite in the past and on mathematics cannot come from a prior causal-temporal thermodynamically constrained entity that is infinite in the past number of years . . . such cannot be traversed year by year . . . it is not the root. Non being has no causal power so it is non viable. We are looking at necessary being world root. KFkairosfocus
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
PM1, I beg to differ. First, we are -- self evidently -- morally governed creatures. We are bound by the ciceronian first duties and even objectors cannot but appeal to same to give force to objections. Branch on which we all sit self evidence. I know certain objectors will predictably try cheap stunts to dismiss, but these are what I mean:
1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.
Obviously, an objector saying they lack warrant or are poorly argued or are not the case is actually appealing to the first three or four. Self-defeatingly. So, part of what we need to account for is a world with rational, responsible, significantly free so morally rather than mechanically or stochastically governed creatures. Post Hume, that can only be done by bridging the is-ought gap in the root of reality, on pain of ungrounded ought. That requires that the necessary being root be adequate to both be and be inherently good including being utterly wise. For this, there is just one serious candidate. The inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of our loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Such a being would be personal and loving, as well as designer of worlds. This is of course a worldview argument and an invitation to comparative difficulties. KFkairosfocus
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
@50
So, just starting with your necessary being, you have a lot of attributes. That’s still a Deistic God and you would have to use more reasoning to move towards the perfections of rationality, intention and will (desiring the good of others). But with that, there couldn’t be any evil in God at all, since that would be an imperfection in power or being. So we’d add all-good to the list.
I agree that we can infer that there is only one necessary being, that it has the power necessary to create every possible universe (including this one), and that is must be "simple" in the metaphysical sense. But I'm much less confident that we could ascribe to God such person-like properties as intention and will. And whether God is all-good depends on whether we accept a privation theory of evil to begin with, I think. Where I really part ways from most people, including (I believe) everyone at Uncommon Descent, is that I reject the assumption that God must be supernatural, in the sense that God exists in a domain of reality separate from the one in which we live. I would classify myself as a "theistic naturalist". It's an unusual view and no doubt raising it here invites some tough challenges. I'm sharing that about myself just to indicate why I keep insisting that I'm not an atheist.PyrrhoManiac1
November 22, 2022
November
11
Nov
22
22
2022
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Timeless is not a sequence. It’s a simultaneous whole. It’s a completeness without the movement or change of parts. A being that it timeless is not measured by a sequence of time – obviously, since it is not bound by time. To say that the being “always existed” would be incorrect also. Rather, it is a being that fully exists – it is always in a present, timeless state. To say that a 'timeless' being is always in a present state but not that it 'always existed' . . . well, there doesn't seem to be much science or mathematics behind such philosophical thinking. Anyway, you answered the question which I appreciate. Even if I don't really see the distinction, particularly because we have no observational data to show the distinction is possible.JVL
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
Querius @65
– The massive range between the very smallest and very largest things – Our ability to create tools observe and explore – Amazing beauty and exciting discoveries – Mind-boggling complexity and interrelated designs throughout – Our ability to comprehend far more than any other living thing – Danger, ugliness, and depravity are also comprehensible to us – The freedom to act and choose far beyond instinct and fixed action patterns – Intelligence and creativity far beyond what’s necessary merely to survive – A sense of morality and duty not present in other living organisms – Programmed death (outside of microorganisms) – A sense of justice – A sense of guilt and a desire to either to in touch with the Creator or hide ourselves
That is excellent. There is a lot to think about in that list. Each element could be expanded out into a valuable study of reality.Silver Asiatic
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
I would think that some ID vocabulary should change, at least from Stephen Meyer. He is saying clearly that the designer is the theistic God. So, why use the term "designer"? He should just replace that term with God - since that's what he's talking about.Silver Asiatic
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Jerry
No, he is saying that the creator is consistent with Judaism, Christianity and probably several other religions.
What he said was:
So we have not a deistic creator, not a space alien, but rather a theistic designer that has the attributes that Jews and Christians have always described to God.
So he is saying that ID can distinguish between a deistic creator and a theistic designer. Beyond that, the ID designer has attributes that Jews and Christians described to God. So, he's saying that the science tells us that the designer is God (theistic not deistic) and science indicates various attributes of God. For Meyer, ID is talking about God - not merely "a designer". Meyer only mentioned Judaism and Christianity has having the characteristics of the ID designer. A theistic God is a creator who interacts with creation, responds to prayer and has made himself known by revelation of sacred scripture. If Meyer is talking about religions other than Christianity and Judaism, then he really should make that known. He also asserts that the ID designer is one God - therefore he thinks science rules out polytheism. There aren't a lot of monotheistic religions of revealed scriptures besides Christianity and Judaism that I can think of. So I wouldn't think he's talking about several other religions. But again, if so - he owes it to his scholarship to define precisely what he's talking about.
For example, how could this creator be so smart and powerful and create an inferior world? The answer is that the creator wouldn’t.
ID has been proposed as a scientific project alone - not a philosophical or theological one. By science alone, you cannot tell what kind of world the designer would or could create. You can't tell if there's only one designer. Science doesn't show this. Meyer thinks it does, but I disagree. Meyer does make a religious claim by distinguishing deism from theism as the identity of the designer. That's religion, not science.
So we have to examine the creation and assume it met objectives perfectly. That might help us understand the creation better. Since that is based on science and logic, it fits into ID. It is not religion. But it is not inconsistent with many religions.
Again, he is saying that the designer is theistic. That's a specific nature of God. That's talking about what God is. Theism requires a revelation - sacred scripture. That's religion.Silver Asiatic
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
So, the designer of ID, according to the leading ID theorist, is the theistic God of Judaism or Christianity.
No, he is saying that the creator is consistent with Judaism, Christianity and probably several other religions.
So, what we know about God, even just from a theistic perspective, is relevant to what ID is claiming.
No, what we know about the creator that ID is claiming is relevant to several religions. Meyer hardly addresses Christianity in his book. He does mention it a few times mostly with the rise of science. We can know somethings about the creator from science and logic. I am saying there is probably a lot of things we can know but few of them are ever discussed on ID. For example, how could this creator be so smart and powerful and create an inferior world? The answer is that the creator wouldn’t. So we have to examine the creation and assume it met objectives perfectly. That might help us understand the creation better. Since that is based on science and logic, it fits into ID. It is not religion. But it is not inconsistent with many religions.jerry
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @63, You nicely articulated difference between timeless and infinite time! What we can observe in our reality includes - The massive range between the very smallest and very largest things - Our ability to create tools observe and explore - Amazing beauty and exciting discoveries - Mind-boggling complexity and interrelated designs throughout - Our ability to comprehend far more than any other living thing - Danger, ugliness, and depravity are also comprehensible to us - The freedom to act and choose far beyond instinct and fixed action patterns - Intelligence and creativity far beyond what's necessary merely to survive - A sense of morality and duty not present in other living organisms - Programmed death (outside of microorganisms) - A sense of justice - A sense of guilt and a desire to either to in touch with the Creator or hide ourselves I was exposed to computer-generated virtual reality near the beginning of that technology and had the experience of navigating within an experimental cyberspace populated by simple 3D geometric shapes using a data glove together with a set of polhemus devices for tracking movement and a VR headset. I was warned that some people experience adverse reactions to cyberspace and not to be surprised. What I found was, despite the power to jet around VR space simply through gestures, there quickly was - a terrible sense of loneliness and disappointment in a VR space. I concluded that the human mind craves detail and the ability to discover new and surprising things. -QQuerius
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Jerry wondered how the nature of God is relevant to ID. Stephen Meyer explained that in his recent book. Here's an excerpt from an interview:
Because the first two books I wrote were making an argument for intelligent design without attempting to identify the nature of the designer. We know from our uniform and repeated experience that mind is the only known cause of the generation of large amounts of specified information. Especially when we find it in a digital or alphabetic form as we do in the molecules that make life possible. So, from the discovery of the functional digital information in living systems, I inferred that a designing intelligence must've played a role in the origin and subsequent development of life. But I didn't attempt to identify the designing an agent involved. Many of my readers wanted to know, well, who do you think the designing intelligence is? And what can science tell us about that question? And so, to address that question, I broadened the range of phenomenon under consideration. And instead of looking just at the evidence of design in biology, I also looked at developments in physics and cosmology about the origin and fine-tuning of the universe. Because one of the proposed identities of the designing intelligence responsible for life is that it was an imminent intelligence within the cosmos. Even Francis Crick and and Richard Dawkins have floated that idea, that maybe life was seated here on earth because it was so difficult to get life going here. Maybe it started someplace else, and that life form evolved and eventually became very intelligent and seeded some simple cells on planet earth. I argue in the new book that that's an unsatisfactory explanation for a number of reasons. But one thing that that hypothesis clearly can't explain is the origin of the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe, that pre-seed the origin of any possible imminent intelligence within the cosmos. Dawkins, when Dawkins proposed this, he suggested that such a being would have evolved by purely natural processes. But not being within the cosmos can be responsible for the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics upon which its very origin and evolution depend. And so, the fine-tuning points not to an imminent intelligence, but requires instead as a condition of its explanation, both an intelligent cause, but one which also lies beyond the boundaries of matter, space, time and energy, one which is transcendent. And so, when you bring in the evidence for the beginning of the universe and for the fine-tuning of the universe from the beginning, I think this precludes the idea of an imminent intelligence within the cosmos, and points rather to a designing agent which transcends the universe. But then because of the biological evidence, is also active in the creation. So we have not a deistic creator, not a space alien, but rather a theistic designer that has the attributes that Jews and Christians have always described to God. https://www.hoover.org/research/stephen-meyer-intelligent-design-and-return-god-hypothesis-1
So, the designer of ID, according to the leading ID theorist, is the theistic God of Judaism or Christianity. So, what we know about God, even just from a theistic perspective, is relevant to what ID is claiming. This was a big surprise to me, after many years of defending the idea that ID says nothing about the nature or identity of the designer. In fact, I was quite upset about that since it contradicted my arguments for years that ID did not (could not) identify or explain attributes of the designer. It could only point to the existence of a designing intelligence, since that's all that the science could show. But Dr. Meyer contradicted that by saying that ID does, in fact, indicate that the designer is not the Deist God but is rather Theistic. I disagree with Meyer on that point and will continue to insist that ID cannot determine what kind of God is the designer (or even if it is not multiple gods or not - notice how Meyer assumes without scientific proof that the designer of the cosmos is the same designer of biological life on earth). But it's part of the ID community now that Stephen Meyer says that ID does, in fact, identify the designer and it is the Theistic God of Judaism and Christianity. ... I think that opens up the criticism that ID is nothing but Creationism in disguise, but that's a different matter for the DI to deal with. In any case, talking directly about what God is or what God does - is now considered (or must be according to Meyer) a part of ID. I could live with that because I'm more of a creationist than an IDist anyway so maybe it's all for the best. But how ID could be considered just a scientific project on that basis is a mystery to me. It would become a theological project at this point, as I see it.Silver Asiatic
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
JVL Andrew answered your first question @61. Here is St. Thomas to explain the difference between timelessness (eternity) and time (succession).
On the contrary, Eternity is simultaneously whole. But time has a "before" and an "after." Therefore time and eternity are not the same thing. I answer that, It is manifest that time and eternity are not the same. .. for eternity is the measure of a permanent being; while time is a measure of movement. Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Q. 10, art 4
So, eternity (timelessness) is "simultaneously whole" - it is not a succession of intervals.
If someone could explain to me how you cannot go step-wise back into the past to infinity but you can have a being which has always existed I’d be very interested.
Time is a sequence. November 19 to 20 to today. You cannot traverse an infinite sequence. You cannot go back an infinite distance because at whatever point you reach in the past, there is always an additional point farther back. Thus, you cannot go back step-wise across a sequence. Timeless is not a sequence. It's a simultaneous whole. It's a completeness without the movement or change of parts. A being that it timeless is not measured by a sequence of time - obviously, since it is not bound by time. To say that the being "always existed" would be incorrect also. Rather, it is a being that fully exists - it is always in a present, timeless state. Jesus explained that when asked about his heritage: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58) When the Jewish leaders heard this they tried to kill him. Do you understand what Jesus was saying in that statement? Do you know what He was referring to and why the Jews were especially triggered against Him?Silver Asiatic
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
The answer is in your own comment …because (the Designer) has an objective . This world is not the objective in itself it’s just a tool.
How do you know that? This is the first I ever saw this asserted in ID.
A car is just a tool to travel to home or to work or to holiday or…No matter how much you will study the car components you will not find the goals of the owner of the car
Why not? The car is built a specific way and not in other ways. That choice should be commensurate with the intended use of the car. To take this example, there are lots of uses for a car and they will surely be obvious from the design. So what is the objective of the tool if the world is not the objective and just a tool? You have pulled a switch here. The owner and designer are different. Are you saying that whoever designed and made this world is different from the owner of the world? Are they different entities? That is new!!!
…unless the owner wants to share them to you
Maybe he does but that is not ID. Also how do we know when the designer of the world wants to share? Or owner of the world who is not the creator of the world wants to share if they are different. Again, I fail to understand why the concept of owner has been introduced. This has never appeared in any ID discussion I have seen. We should stick to just designer unless you believe the creator and designer are different entities. The concept of owner has no parallel.jerry
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply