Appreciating Design and Designer – Vern Poythress

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 4, 2022

Intelligent Design, Mathematics

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Mathematics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Philip Cunningham draws our attention to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReATRww8jVc

Rev. Dr. Vern Poythress (PhD, Harvard; DTh, Stellenbosch) is distinguished professor of New Testament, biblical interpretation, and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. His books include Redeeming Science, Redeeming Mathematics, and Redeeming Philosophy, or Chance and the Sovereignty of God.

Of related note, he adds:

A Biblical View of Mathematics – Vern Poythress – Doctorate in theology, PhD in Mathematics (Harvard) Excerpt: 15. Implications of Gödel’s proofB. Metaphysical problems of anti-theistic mathematics: unity and plurality

Excerpt: Because of the above difficulties, anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate, much as we have done in our argument, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Why? It will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties. In sections 22-23 we shall see how the Biblical view furnishes us with a real solution to the problem of “knowing” that 2 + 2 = 4 and knowing that S is true.

Comments

Seversky at 81, The same old same old. "... proposing contingent, naturalistic causation." We'll make a Christian out of you yet. The God you describe is nothing like the actual God Catholics know. Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God's works." ---the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 198 "Catholic belief is succinctly expressed in the profession of faith or credo called the Nicene Creed: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."relatd_{September 10, 2022
September
09
Sep
10
10
2022
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Viola and Jerry I think Jerry's answer is correct. [Note: I was referring Jerry at 82 but his latest seems to be on point as well.] I think it's also highly relevant to an earlier part of Viola's question. Consider the following scenarios: (1) God creates the flagellum through an instantaneous act of materialization. This would be undetectable to us because we didn't see it. (2) God directs quick evolution to produce the flagellum by producing rapid infusions of information. If we had been there and we were able to observe it, design would seem very plausible because of the rapid changes in disregard of the laws of probability. Given the fact that we were not there though, for us it is not detectable. (3) God produces the flagellum through a long process of meta-guided evolution. He does this by choosing a moment when deterministic forces are in perfect alignment to produce the desired outcome and only needs to supply a few tweaks at the quantum level to set the process in motion. This would be absolutely undetectable to us because even if we were there and could see all relevant factors we would not be able to interpret such a thing. For us, design could only be detectable in the final product. It is in complex specified structures with function that we can detect design. ID does not deny or require any particular mechanism.hnorman42_{September 10, 2022
September
09
Sep
10
10
2022
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

what is being proposed is an extraterrestrial intelligent agent – for which the burden of proof rests with those arguing for it, not with those proposing contingent, naturalistic causation.
From the horse’s mouth. The crux of the argument is who/what caused the design. Side 1 -ID. An unknown intelligence existed that created the design (FSCI) we see in the universe, Earth, life and then complex life. ID cannot identify the intelligence but there could be more than one. Rationale - nothing except intelligence has ever produced FCSI. Therefore a designer must have existed. Side 2 - Atheists. Natural laws produced everything we see including FSCI. Rationale - no intelligence other than humans has ever been known to exists. Therefore the only cause for FSCI has to be the laws of nature. This is an attempt to boil down the opposing arguments to as few words as possible. There are some missing parts - for example - Is fine tuning (universe and Earth) different from FSCI that exists in life. How is this best fitted in?jerry_{September 10, 2022
September
09
Sep
10
10
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Perhaps you can explain the argument as to what constitutes empirical detectable design?
CSI that has function. Here is a video that was presented on UD explaining the calculation of CSI. Some is simple while other parts will require more concentration. It was by Jonathan Bartlett. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CWu_8CTdDY&t=217s Behe has a definition
the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components
This ought to get some of the commenters here ready to contribute hundreds of repetitive comments. There was just one just a month ago that lasted over 500 comments. Nobody pays attention. It would destroy their reason for commenting.jerry_{September 10, 2022
September
09
Sep
10
10
2022
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee/63
68. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. …
Doesn't the assertion that God is the cause of causes and the cause of existence imply that, prior to the First Cause there was nothing, no existence whatsoever, including God? And if God can create everything that exists can we assume that He can destroy everything that exists - again, including Himself - thereby returning to nothing, absolute non-existence?
In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.
Are there "neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided"? If there are then they are indeed going beyond what can be demonstrated by science. All we can say is that the only intelligent agents of which we are aware that are capable of exercising any kind of guidance in the natural world are human beings - ourselves. Except that human beings are nowhere near capable of the degree of guidance being alleged by the ID/creationist community so what is being proposed is an extraterrestrial intelligent agent - for which the burden of proof rests with those arguing for it, not with those proposing contingent, naturalistic causation.Seversky_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

Then the sentence "And if God’s “allowing” accomplishes something that being absent would not, it would have to be called design" is an accurate description of the situation, is it? If God is present in the ordinary unfolding of natural processes, then what makes it that "in some things design is empirically detectable but not in others." My understanding of the argument is that the design of X is empirically detectable if it can be shown that natural processes could not produce X," but that seems to say that God presence in natural processes is sometime insufficient and that a different level/kind of his involvement is necessary which results in empirically detectable design. But that gets us back to occasional interventions. But perhaps there is a different argument as to why, theologically, some things X have empirically detectable design. Perhaps you can explain the argument as to what constitutes empirical detectable design?Viola Lee_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee No, it does not imply that God is not present in the ordinary unfolding of natural processes. It only states that design is not always detectable in the ordinary unfolding of natural processes.hnorman42_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Hnorman 42, you write, "And if God’s “allowing” accomplishes something that being absent would not, it would have to be called design." It seems that "God’s “allowing” accomplishes something that being absent would not" is what ID posits: that natural causes left on their own (without God' presence??) X would not happen, so the fact that X exists points to design. But again, that seems to imply that God is not present in the ordinary unfolding of natural processes, which is not what the Catholic TE position I am describing says.Viola Lee_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

What you 're talking about harmonizes with the Hindu concepts of Purusha and Prakriti. Then again, all forms of theism acknowledge that the supreme being can act in ways beyond our comprehension. But these issues do not concern science. All of these concepts - and here I correct myself - something has to be comprehendable to be called a concept - all of these are said to involve intelligence. Intelligence is the connecting thread. And if God's "allowing" accomplishes something that being absent would not, it would have to be called design.hnorman42_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

to hnorman at 72. You write, “I don’t think that ID implies occasional intervention but rather that in some things design is empirically detectable but not in others. All things may be by God’s design. But that is a faith-based claim.” I agree with what you write starting with “but rather. But I think the argument is that some things are empirically detectable is based on the premise that natural processes alone could not produce them, and therefore there is a distinction between the “unfolding” posited by TE and some additional type of divine action, which would be an intervention above and beyond the unfolding of natural processes.Viola Lee_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Jerry writes, "... not that He continually modifies the forces of physics which He could." No. being continually present is not the same as continually modifying. I think part of the problem here is an excessively anthropomorphic view of how God acts, as if he is looking down and watching and when he becomes aware of something he wants to be different, he acts. But God is an omni-everything divine being whose omni-presence is coincident with his omnipotence: awareness and action are a simultaneous, undifferentiated whole. As the natural process unfold, his will is manifested: from above: “God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce.” Every moment of the unfolding of the natural order is as he intends to produce. I’ll point out that how this happens is beyond our understanding. Trying to analytically understand how this could be from our point of view leads to misleading anthropomorphisms.Viola Lee_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Relatd - Agreed. Living things clearly give evidence of design.hnorman42_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Hnorman42 at 72, All living things are designed. They all contain codes to carry out life functions. This in opposition to Richard Dawkins who stated that living things only appear to designed, but are not actually designed.relatd_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Viola @ 70 I don't think that ID implies occasional intervention but rather that in some things design is empirically detectable but not in others. All things may be by God's design. But that is a faith-based claim.hnorman42_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

that God is continually present, not just occasionally
What does this mean? I always thought it meant God continually sustains our universe and keeps it in existence not that He continually modifies the forces of physics which He could. Now as a Christian, I believe God does modify nature on occasion, miracles are a specific instance. Ongoing creation could be another. Christians believe modifications have happened more than just rarely. The study I pointed to above indicates Catholics often pray. They might not be asking for an intervention/modification on all praying occasions since prayer can have many forms.jerry_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Because tweaking implies occasional intervention, (which ID seems to imply), but the TE view is that God is continually present, not just occasionally.Viola Lee_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

And I also don’t know what you mean by “natural evolution”. I think you mean evolution from materialistic viewpoint. If so, of course TE’s don’t mean that
Not true as far as I know. By natural, I mean due to the four known forces of nature, maybe some unknown ones we don’t know about. This process has been shown deficient to produce any significant change in life forms. But most of the world does not know this. So there are scientists/politicians/theologians etc. of all types that make policy based on this misconception. What you then get is a theology that assumes this true. Now for Christians and maybe for some other religions based on a God creating the universe and life, there has to be some accommodations. So you get God directs this Evolution. How He did it, they could care less. But How? Through some type of front loading? Or some type of tweaking along the way. I believe some have proposed that God does this through quantum interventions. Why that? I have no idea. The front loading could have been built into the Big Bang or it could have been built into the OOL. If it is tweaking along the way say through quantum processes, how is that different from ID? I don’t see any difference nor do I see initial conditions in the Big Bang as any different. What I do see is there aren’t any current mechanism due solely to the forces of nature as sufficient. But some TEs assume it exists and all that’s needed. jerry_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Jerry writes, "TEs/ECs say God did it by tweaking natural evolution (whatever that means) which implies it is not really natural evolution." No, TE's don't say anything about "tweaking". Re-read paragraph 68 in post 63. Let me bold a few phrases
God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely [natural] causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation.
And I also don't know what you mean by "natural evolution". I think you mean evolution from materialistic viewpoint. If so, of course TE's don't mean that.Viola Lee_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

:) Whole idea of evolution was to explain away God .Lieutenant Commander Data_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 65, Again with the word "natural." All I can gather from the usage here is that God was absolutely NOT involved in anything called "natural."relatd_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

but Lameroux’s book is not “new”: it was published in 2008.
Republished in 2021. If I could send screen shots I could show you things from 2009 about book and current Amazon page which list it as 2021. So I assume Lamoureux did some editing and reissued. I don't intend on reading either of Lamoureux's editions. Looks like my eyes would glaze over in the first chapter. All this has been covered on UD in the past. It's really quite simple. TEs/ECs say God did it by tweaking natural evolution (whatever that means) which implies it is not really natural evolution. Or He could have front loaded it somehow to play out till humans arrived. Either way there is no science of naturalized evolution that is relevant. IDS say there is no naturalized way Evolution could have happened based on current science. So what are the differences? That's it. Now there are some implications of this but that is it at current time. From current Amazon page - may just reflect there is now a Kindle edition
Product details ASIN ? : ? B08SR1DVHB Publisher ? : ? Wipf & Stock (January 11, 2021) Publication date ? : ? January 11, 2021 Language ? : ? English File size ? : ? 29405 KB Text-to-Speech ? : ? Not enabled Enhanced typesetting ? : ? Not Enabled X-Ray ? : ? Not Enabled Word Wise ? : ? Not Enabled Print length ? : ? 514 pages Lending ? : ? Enabled
Last review of book is 2016 so my guess Kindle version is just 2008 version republished.jerry_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Paragraph 68 above, which had not been previously quoted, is very good. It says that God is the cause of all natural causes and actions, and in respect to life: "Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation." That is, Catholic doctrine and evolution are not incompatible as long as one understands that the contingent events revealed to and investigated by human beings are part of God's divine providence.Viola Lee_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Some good research, Jerry, but Lameroux's book is not "new": it was published in 2008. Realtd writes, "Any Catholic, or anyone else, can go to Church documents – available online – and educate themselves." Such as this. (Some already quoted by Realtd): From the INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God*
68. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. ... 69. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
This does not differ from what Lameroux is saying.Viola Lee_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

LCD at 61, What does "natural" mean? I want to know. Did God take a wind-up toy, set it on the ground and let it go wherever it wanted?relatd_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

If The Catholic Church teach that then is wrong:
The Catholic Church teaches “theistic evolution,” a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species
Lieutenant Commander Data_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 57, I work in the media. I have been in it for over 40 years. Your assumptions are appalling. Amazon, I have noticed, has done two things. It no longer allows comments on reviews. Old comments have been scrubbed. It delays reviews so it can review them prior to publication. I know this from personal experience. So, Amazon will censor reviews. Usually, books like this get long criticisms. Very long in some cases. This book has the Look Inside feature and I was able to read a portion. The author is not a very good writer and appears to take the long way in outlining his thoughts and observations. Without a certain level of knowledge regarding the subject matter, I think the average person would have a great deal of difficulty with it, or a desire to buy it.relatd_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Sandy at 56, Allow me to correct you. The Catholic Church is not wrong, only Jerry is wrong. Just Jerry. Got that? I suggest you find out what the Church actually teaches before you make anymore God and mammon comments.relatd_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 53, You are just mucking things up. Your "research" is deficient. I suggest you stop now or I will taunt you a second time. Nothing as in nothing depends on the level of Catholic education. Your ability to make assumptions is at 100%, everything else is in the 10% range. Your statistics don't matter. Any Catholic, or anyone else, can go to Church documents - available online - and educate themselves.relatd_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

This book came up as part of the material on Larmer’s website and posted here just for reference. (Larmer and Lamoureux are different. It seems relevant but prohibitively expensive. https://www.amazon.com/Compatibility-Evolution-Palgrave-Frontiers-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B09CD2D46B/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1662734997&sr=1-1 At over $100 and no reviews, it is not in wide circulation. Apparently Lamoureux, who is just one Catholic, does not like the idea of a tinkering creator and UD avoids discussing a tinkering creator like the plague.jerry_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Catholic Church is wrong because there is no such thing like Theistic Evolution. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else. he will hold to the one, and despise the other, Ye cannot serve God and mammon.Sandy_{September 9, 2022
September
09
Sep
9
09
2022
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply