New Article: Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent

That is my point. Only I am saying not random at all. The rain comes when the clouds have become condensed water and that happens by design because God designed the Universe and uses rules and laws to govern it. So we could say “as God desires” but that desires is in how God created the Universe and the earth and its surroundings specifically.

Your vacuuming did indeed involve the use of a phenomenon that scientists label as random. Do you want to enjoy the pleasure of figuring this puzzle out for yourself? If not, I would be happy to explain.

Best,
Chris

Please explain.

Maybe I’m not understanding the way you’re using “metaphysical”? When someone looks at some truly random piece of iron that formed strictly by natural processes, and then looks at an anchor, and recognizes that one of the two is “designed” and one is not, I generally wouldn’t put that distinction in the category of a “metaphysical” distinction… can you perhaps explain further?

I suppose I could say that any inference to design, whether it is my iPhone, an asphalt street, a space shuttle,’or an arrowhead is strictly speaking a metaphysical process, as the “design”’ inference is not strictly speaking found in the raw physical matter itself…

But then we would classify archaeology, forensics, and SETI as “metaphysical” disciplines, which doesn’t seem to be how we typically use the term?

Perhaps it would be better to say that the concept of design is not measurable or quantifiable.

When you say

What criteria do you use to determine what is designed and what is not? Instead of comparing two objects where one has no “sense” of design, how do handle a natural object that actually does appear to be designed when it is not? My example was a rock arch that is carved by wind erosion and a bridge. When you look at a rock arch you “know” it wasn’t designed by an intelligent agent but what other criteria could you apply that would determine that it wasn’t designed? If you were totally ignorant of the effects of wind erosion wouldn’t you say it does appear to be designed?

To me the concept of design is much like beauty. It lies in the eye of the beholder. And to me anything that is dependent on what someone thinks about it is metaphysical.

Evolution (and, for that matter, practically any other physical process) involves some aspects that can be described as random and some that can’t. But we need to define “random”. Both those promoting randomness and those objecting often confuse different senses. “Random” can mean a specific mathematical pattern where something is best described (from a human perspective) by a probability. For example, flipping a coin, casting lots, will this particular atom decay in the next year, will a particular mutation occur. It can also mean something that is humanly unpredictable, but not probabilistic in that sense. For example, mathematically chaotic behavior has a precise outcome for any given input value, not a range of probabilities. But the outcome is so sensitive to the input value that it is practically unpredictable in the long term. Long-term weather is an example. Another category of unpredictable outcomes would be things that have no math formula, such as the long-term course of history (human history or earth history). Yet another sense of “random” is “unguided” or “purposeless”. But at what level? I can have a purpose for flipping a coin, but no amount of study of the coin or the laws of physics governing it will detect my purpose for it.

All of the above categories include things that the Bible affirms are under God’s control. All of them can apply to certain aspects of evolution, though there are significantly non-random aspects as well. The laws of nature provide significant constraints on what can evolve, for example. The laws of nature have no goals of their own that could be found by studying them; they are merely patterns and means used by God, as Genesis 1 points out. We have to look to God to discern the purpose. The randomness in evolution seems to be a good way to create diversity; perhaps that is a reason to use it as a method of creation.

2 Likes

Very well, but somehow i doubt that, if the scientists at SETI announce tomorrow that they have discovered clear and indisputable evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence based on their criteria in some particular signal, that you would be disputing that, suggesting that “the concept of design lies in the eye of the beholder”, and objecting that that they are making metaphysical claims rather than limiting their conclusions to “hard science.”

Or that the next time an archaeologist discovers a brick and mortar structure under the desert sand, that you would similarly object to his claim that said wall was “designed”, as design is merely in the eye of the beholder, and that he should refrain from making metaphysical claims regarding the science of archaeology?

But they have criteria that is defined in advance of the discovery that is clear and well documented. I would guess that it includes measurable qualities of the signal and are not just someone’s judgment that the signal indicates non-natural origins.

An archaeologist would never claim to find a “designed” wall. She would only indicate that a non-natural object is identified as a wall with a measured date of origin.

Are you seeing where I am going here?

God does not create directly. This is to protect God and the universe. Some think that God and the universe are identical, in which case God would create directly, but that also means that everything is God and humans would have no independent existence.

Here is what God says about how God creates us.
Psalm 139:13-18 (NIV2011)
13 **For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. **
**14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. **
15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, God! How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand— when I awake, I am still with you.

.
Maybe some people’s versions of “evolutionary creationism” might be based on random events, but not mine as I keep telling you, but you refuse to hear. The Big Bang is not a random event. The creation and the extinction of the dinosaurs were not random events, nor do they appear to be random events, but part of God’s plan for God’s universe

Nor is the Coming of Jesus the Messiah a random event, but part of God’s plan for us and our world. To be sure God’s plan of salvation is on a different plane from evolution and science, but it all fits together, which makes Dawkins’ Selfish Gene a ridiculous lie.

Selfish Gene is about life which must end in death. The Gospel of Jesus is about Life for God, others, and self, which is eternal, and justifies, whatever trauma this life has. God’s plan includes evolution and the events of this life, but goes beyond them to redeem them.

1 Like

Thank you for your explanation. But here’s my problem. If we were talking about genes being copied and folded in some simple manner then maybe the scientists could argue random changes / mutation and then natural selection where some new change was beneficial. BUT we are not talking about anything simple.
Transcription is not straight forward copying. A complex protein called a spliceosome, in the nucleus of the cell where transcription has taken place, come along and chops up the transcription product, the precursor mRNA and removes the so-called introns. These may constitute as much as 80% of the precursor mRNA. Then the remaining pieces, called exons are joined together to arrive at the final, functional messenger RNA. And the introns removed are not junk. At least some of them we have found form special forms of mRNA or what are known as regulatory bodies. They also have functions in the process.
Then the mRNA is taken out of the nucleus, which requires protocols to be observed and into a ribosome in the cytoplasm, where translation takes place. And here too it is not a simple straight forward process. There are modifications here too. Finally the end product is folded and folding may take place in other areas. Finally the protein is placed where it is needed and turned on as appropriate.
Three is no way that all this highly sophisticated machinery / processes of the cell in the creation of proteins can have evolved by random mutations. And furthermore one gene can give rise to a number of different proteins depending on the modifications made.
If all that science can do is come up with random noise that happens to be useful in creating the most sophisticated machinery known to the human kind, far outweighing anything that humans have made, then I am sorry but I beg to differ.

I don’t believe that God and the Universe are one and the same. I believe that God, who is in the spiritual realm, created the Universe and all that is in the Universe. God created directly by upholding the relevant information (thought) for each thing to be made, in the Mind of God, a non-physical reality in which the physical reality comes into being.

God has independent existence, but we don’t have independent existence. Without God sustaining the Universe and all lifeforms, there is no Universe and there is no life. The psalms verse that you quoted is saying just that. Without God we can’t exist in any physical form and we can’t live.

I agree with you that the Big Bang was not a random event. It brought the physical reality into being. God made everything according to a Divine Plan, so the extinction of the dinosaurs and other animals and the appearance of new forms are all in accordance to the Divine Plan. So yes, Dawkins’ selfish gene is a ridiculous lie.

I don’t know if Jesus will return or if it be some other prophet, but there will be a time of awakening and rejoicing in God. My understanding is that we are all conscious beings and eternal. However there are those who have chosen to deaden their conscience, which involves darkening their consciousness. These people are doomed by their own hand. They are the devil’s people and they end up in eternal oblivion together with Satan. Those people, who make effort to walk the Path of Righteousness are assisted by God, by some means whether it is Jesus or Muhammad or Krishna etc. They are all messengers of God as far as I know.

I don’t agree that you can just join the club and you get cleaned up. To be granted eternal life, i.e., immortality, you may call it redeemed if you like, one has to have a desire for God and to respect God’s Plan and all that is involved. This does not mean that the person is perfect. It means that they have made effort, given the freedom they have been given, the free will, to follow God and want to be with God.

Evolution is what atheist scientists have come up with because they refuse to acknowledge any conscious being. It is simple a meat robot and chemicals drive the show. This is an atheists’ agenda and not part of God’s Plan. This is where we differ.

i’m afraid not…

Um , OK, but now this is a discussion on the specific language, and if the particular design of the wall was in any way unique or noteworthy, our archaeologist may well discuss the design of said wall.

i think it is safe to say that it is far less likely that said archaeologist would employ the language of calling a wall a “non-natural object”, no?

But no, i have no idea where you’re going with this?

perhaps they do… but are you really suggesting that, had we by chance received and recorded some clearly intelligently-sourced or purposed signal before SETI was a thing, and before they had developed and documented said criteria, that it would thus be illegitimate for anyone to conclude intelligent agency behind said signal?

The problem as I see it is that both atheists and theists have an either/or problem. They both see God and Nature as either totally independent of or totally dependent on each other. That is a false dichotomy based on linear. either/or thinking. Instead, God and nature are interdependent, which is the way God designed it to protect us and God from absolute power. God is wiser than we give God credit for.

Well I disagree with you on that. God and nature are not interdependent IMO. God is independent of God’s creation but the creation/ nature is dependent on God. Without God it all disappears. There is no life and life processes without God. God made us co-creators, which means we have the ability to make some changes. For instance when we react emotionally we bring about changes in the body. When we return to a state of rest and tranquility, those changes are eliminated and we have resting metabolism again. Our reactions can bring about genetic changes, at least as far as epigenetics is concerned.

I believe that genetic changes can occur in a more fundamental level. And again when we cease reacting those changes are reversed. This is not accepted in mainstream science.

But even as co-creators, it is with God’s co-operation that we bring about the changes.

The atheistic view sees the body and life processes as stand alone.

I don’t understand what you mean by "the way God designed it to protect us and God from absolute power " Can you explain what you mean please.

I’ve perused a couple of articles by Meadows and Hemphill, and I’m seeing the same problem here.

The foundation of Science is observable fact, but when it comes to Origins, speculation and atheistic wish fulfillment are being offered instead.

What scientist observed the beginning of Life? Who’s ever seen life arise apart from life (or life’s programs)? Who’s ever seen a lower form of life develop by only random, natural processes newer and more complex genetic program, structure, and function? Miller? Lenski? Darwin?

(His finches were still just finches.)

No one’s seen any of that, ever. What we have seen is life arise only and always from the same kind of life.

Under the guise of “science” atheistic naturalism is being promoted as scientific fact, correlation is being confused for causation, similarity in code, structure, or function for descent. And if you disagree, you will be punished.

If honest, the best that Science can say regarding Origins is, “We can’t say.” Just like with Abiogenesis.

And the most rational explanation for similarities in code? The same Coder.

That was a little tongue in cheek, but I remember reading about archaeological finds where there was a disagreement that the rocks found indicated a wall or were a natural occurring geological feature. And then I found this in an article on methods archaeologists use to map a site:

Basically, they make measurements and then compare the results with known sites.

The key word is measurement.

What measurement could be made that would indicate the signal is not a naturally occurring fluctuation in some source?

No of course. My point is simply that the judgement that a signal indicates an intelligent agency would be based on some measurement of the signal and not someone’s opinion that the signal must be “designed”.

1 Like

Ah, thus far we find agreement!

Now, is it even conceivable, even hypothetically, that such measurement could be found in DNA, and not just electromagnetic signals?

And now here comes the rub. Hypothetically, if we could detect angels then we could count how many
dance on the head of a pin.

The measurement would have to apply to DNA, a single cell, or a bird’s wing to truly say all of life is intelligently designed by someone/thing. To be honest I don’t pay a lot of attention to ID but is any effort being made to address the identification of what is and is not design? All I have seen is an argument of the form “not evolution then ID” with all of the arguments focused on the not evolution.

1 Like

Have you ever read Meyer’s book “Signsture in the cell”? Whether one agrees or disagrees with this argument, he very carefully does try to craft the argument specifically as you suggest, inferring from the evidence to the best explanation, rather than simply the “not blind forces therefore…”

2 Likes

That works for theists, and it really is an intuited inference, not a scientific one. (And you know I have no trouble with the existence of design, just its execution.)

1 Like