Where is design evident?

Using a very broad brush, there are two major areas where "Design" advocates suggest we look for intelligent causation. 

1) The construct of the Physical Universe

2) Biological Complexity.

On rare occasion I read the words of a person who accepts the propect of design in one area, but not the other.  It would appear that Theist and evolutionist (but not a theistic evolutionist?)  Fracis Collins accepts the idea that God, as an intelligent being, set up the contants of the physical universe in such a way as to provide a foundation for life.  On the other hand, he seems to favor Darwinian (unguided) evolution.  He's an odd bird, something of a Christian apologist, and micro matterialist at the same time.   As a rule, however, you will find that folks who site God as active in the set up of the Universe, also find him capable of innovation at the level of life and biological complexity.


Design expressed in:

Fundamental Physical Laws (the problem of Universals)

Universal Constants

Atomic Structure

The attributes of particular materials (example: water)

The distribution of materials

The origin of Life

The complexity of DNA

The complexity of the Cell

The Complexity of organ systems, and the integration of the cellular

The particular attributes of individual species.

The Mind of Man

The Social relationships of Man (Ethics)

********SECTION - THE CASE FOR DESIGN

The Case "to" Design (Intro)

When I first encountered the phrase "argument to design" in the writings of Anthony Flew (Atheist turned Deist) I thought he had made an error in grammar.  Wouldn't it be an argument from Design.  But according to Flew, the argument to Design, is one which leads to the inference of design (which in turn can be used to infer Intelligent Agency).


Dawkins on Flew
Anthony Flew speaks



There are so many arguments to design, that it is hard to know where to begin.  But the astronomical caseload of design samples only reinforces the basic disagreement between those who embrace design, and those who do not.  Proponents of Design, see design most everywhere, where those who reject intelligent design, see only the appearance of design.  (or the assumption of design) 


In a nutshell, arguments to design focus on four or five major areas.


1) The structure of the Universe
2) the Origin of Life
3) the complexity of the Cell or of  particular structures
4) the formation or attributes of individual species. 
5) the larger connectedness between species (ecosystems)








Design in DNA:

For example, the genetic code that we see in almost all organisms today is remarkably optimized. It allows for redundancy that reduces the chance of DNA mutations causing changes in protein structure, but on the other hand, the most common mutations due to the intrinsic chemistry of DNA lead to amino acid changes that increase hydrophobicity, increasing the likelihood of secondary structure and protein-protein interactions. There is also no evidence for precursor codes, and the variants that do exist (such as the mitochondrial code) are better explained as divergent from the universal code rather than primordial remnants. The numerous mechanisms within the cell to ensure the fidelity of DNA replication, RNA transcription, and protein translation, when compared with what we know about codes in general, are also good evidence for teleology in biology. Even more intriguingly, some bacteria have a mechanism for increasing the rate of mutations in their genomes in response to certain stresses, which along with the general trend toward hydrophobicity in proteins suggests that evolutionary mechanisms may be co-opted by organisms to increase their complexity and chances of survival. http://missionterritory.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/the-problem-of-design/

Physical Constants


Nancey Murphy. Professor of Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary.

Here is one point where greater knowledge of the natural world bears on a theological problem. Since the writings of Brandon Carter in 1974 we have had increasingly detailed knowledge of the way in which fundamental constants and physical laws appear to be fine-tuned to produce a universe that supports life. Change any of the numbers slightly, and the development of the entire universe would have gone quite differently, making the evolution of life impossible. For example, the ratio of the strength of gravity to one of the other basic forces, the nuclear weak force, had to be adjusted as accurately as one part in 10 to the 100th power to avoid either a swift collapse of the universe or an explosion.


These scientific developments can be used to argue that, if there is a designer God whose purpose for the universe includes life, especially intelligent life, then the laws and constants had to be almost exactly what they are. Thus, if we are to be here, the natural world must contain almost exactly the amount of danger and destruction that it does.  (a part of this quote is given to the problem of destruction and pain in the universe.)

Owen Gingerich (Templeton Essay)  Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard University and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

Only gradually did I come to appreciate how magnificently tuned the universe is for the emergence of intelligent life. Carbon atoms, with their self-bonding properties, provide the immense variety for the complex cellular machinery–no other atom offers a comparable range of possibilities.


But carbon did not emerge from the big bang of creation. It was slowly produced, over billions of years, in the cores of evolving stars. Had some of the basic constants of nature been only slightly different, there would be no major abundance of carbon. And it is extremely difficult to imagine intelligent life without something like carbon.

One swallow does not a summer make. But in the fine-tuning of the universe, the abundance of carbon is only one of many such remarkable aspects. There are enough such "coincidences" to give thoughtful observers some pause. Scientists who are loath to accept a fine-tuned universe feel obliged to take notice. Of course, if the universe were any other way, we wouldn't be here to observe it, but that is hardly a satisfying answer.

Bruno Guiderdoni (Templeton Essay) is an astrophysicist and the Director of the Observatory of Lyon, France

Modern science has produced something quite unexpected. Even to a scientist such as myself. It turns out that the observed features of the natural world appear to be fine-tuned for biological complexity. In other words, everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles, the number of space dimensions, to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe, and the formation of galaxies are all exactly what they need to be to create stars, planets, atoms, and molecules.


But where does this apparent fine-tuning come from?

Is it the manifestation of a plan for the universe? An arrangement by a superior will to prepare the way for complex creatures? Is it God's signature? People of faith believe it is so. They read purpose in the universe as a painter sees beauty in a view on the ocean.

...  The fact that these fundamental theories ((Multiverse etc.)) are even accessible to our brains, which, in a purposeless universe would be nothing but a by-product of our ability to find prey (and avoid being prey), in the millennia of Homo sapiens' evolution is something I find quite ... puzzling.

The reality is that we are able to contemplate such questions. And the bigger the questions our brains can ponder, the more unlikely that the cosmic drama we are all participating in is simply a cosmic lottery.

Design Notes: Hugh Ross, 4 Spheres of fine tuning

Astronomer and Progressive Creationist Hugh Ross divides attributes (or constants) required for the support of physical life into four categories (based on the scope of the challenge) and with each, comments on the statistical probablity of such attributes occuring through "chance" occurance.


Part 1: Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe — lists 140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) that must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of physical life's existence.

http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part1.pdf

Part 2: Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life—describes 402 quantifiable characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy that must fall within narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of advanced life's existence. This list includes comment on how a slight increase or decrease in the value of each characteristic would impact that possibility.

http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part2.pdf

Part 3: Probability Estimates for Features Required by Various Life Forms—identifies 922 characteristics of a galaxy and of a planetary system physical life depends on and offers conservative estimates of the probability that any galaxy or planetary system would manifest such characteristics. This list is divided into three parts, based on differing requirements for various life-forms and their duration.

http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf

Part 4: Probability Estimates on Different Size Scales for the Features Required by Advanced Life—presents a breakdown of the characteristics required by advanced life (from Part 3) as they must occur, separately, in the galaxy cluster, galaxy, star, planetary system, planet, moon, planetary surface, and ecosystem where advanced life exists.

http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part4.pdf

What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics

What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how, or in what manner does it apply to the larger origns debate?

(Note: Much more here to be applied)

Thermodynamics


Any evolutionary model of the universe must conflict with one of the most fundamental laws of science, namely the second Law of Thermodynamics. This law formalizes the observed fact that, within those regions of space and time which are accessible to observation, the universe is decreasing in complexity and availability of energy. The evolutionary model must, however, postulate a universe that has instead evolved upwards toward higher states of order and availability. Since the Second Law always appears to hold true in observable space and time, and evolutionary model must include some component which negates the Second Law in non-observable space and time. The steady state theory supposes that energy or matter somehow came into existence out of nothing far out in non-observable space. The big-bang theory supposes that energy or matter somehow came into existence out of nothing (or at least out of some state of things completely incommensurate with the present state of things) far back in non-observable time. There is, of course, no way of testing any process which operates in non-observable space and time! (Morris/Gish ed The Battle for Creation V2 p188)

Who designed the Designer?

Who designed the Designer:

The jist of the argument. (Get Dawkins actual words.)
The Universe is complex.
It is improbable (but not impossible) that a world like ours should exist by chance.
A god capable of designing the universe must be more complex than the universe itself.
If it is improbable that our universe should exist, it is even less probable that being who is more complex than the universe should exist.
Given Occam’s razor (the simplest explanation is to be preferred), it makes more sense to affirm the self existence of the universe, than to affirm the self existence of God.

What is the Theistic argument from First Cause

If we conclude that the universe had a beginning, we must then ask whether that beginning was caused or not caused. The Bible’s position that the cosmos was created by God clearly recognizes that there was cause, and identifies what that cause was.

The “Thermodynamics” of Spirit.

The “Thermodynamics” of Spirit.




In the realm of physics, we note that systems “lose” power, and that energy always moves in the direction of “concentration” to toward “dissipation” (or toward greater entropy)

Unless new energy is added to a system

Heat cools

Sound dims

Light fades

Water runs downhill.

Bodies decay

Systems move from higher organization to lower states of organization.

The Greater gives birth to the lesser.

The general framework of naturalistic evolution moves against the grain of numerous physical laws and postulates that disorder gives birth to order. Death gives birth to life. Chaos gives birth to purpose.

On the other hand, When we begin with the eternal God, the “flow” matches the idea we experience both in observation and by intuition: ie. -- that which is greater both precedes and feeds that which is lesser.



That which is LIVING gives birth to life.

God who is Personal, gives birth to personality

God who is VOLITIONAL – gives volitional capabilities to man

God who is CREATIVE – gives gifts of creativity to man

God who is Omniscient – gives knowledge to man

God who is Omnipotent – give power to man

God who sees, hears, tastes? Touches? Smells? Give birth to the sensory in man

God who is love – gives man emotive gifts.

God who is holy, endows men with various gifts ranging from wrath to governing authority.

Bible: What is the Fall?

Question:  What are the implications of the Fall, if -- according to every old earth model, death and suffering was a normal part of the pre-Fall Universe?


A review of The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller
Dutton, New York, 2008

reviewed by Lita Cosner  (Creation Ministries 7/9/10)

Evolutionary stance makes for flawed answers on suffering

Keller is a theistic evolutionist, which causes him to give wrong or incomplete answers to some of the questions he attempts to answer in his book. For instance, in his chapter on pain and suffering (ch. 2), he says that God sometimes allows evil to happen in order that He may turn it to good in some way, and that Jesus died on the cross undergoing tremendous suffering to save humanity, proving that God’s reason for allowing suffering is not that he does not love mankind. He also points forward to the hope of resurrection and the end of all suffering.

The starting point should have been that humans go through pain and suffering because we are all fallen and sinful, and fallen people are capable of committing acts of tremendous evil.

While there is nothing necessarily wrong with this answer, it is still incomplete, because he does not address the reason for pain and suffering—the Fall.3,4 The starting point should have been that humans go through pain and suffering because we are all fallen and sinful, and fallen people are capable of committing acts of tremendous evil. God is, of course, capable of overriding human will, but does not always do so, because He values human voluntary will (although it is impossible, of course, to know just how often God does intervene in situations). Another aspect of the Fall is that things do not work correctly at times, including our bodies, leading to disease and death. When these things happen and we feel as if it is wrong, as if it was never supposed to be like this, it is precisely because things are all wrong. Any answer to the question of pain and suffering that does not include this sort of explanation is seriously lacking.

Incompetent exegesis of Genesis creation account:

Keller’s incomplete answer to the question of pain and suffering was an error of omission, but his chapter on science and religion (ch. 6) contains many errors of commission. He handles the issue of miracles versus science well,5 but cites the predictable theistic evolutionist line on the Bible and evolution. He asserts that Genesis 1 is a poem (p. 93), that the interpretation is up for debate,6 and that many Christians with a high view of Scripture have no problem accepting evolution without embracing materialism (p. 87).

What is the Anthropomorphic Principle?

Question: What is the Anthropomorphic Principle?

Answer: The Anthropomorphic Principle suggests that the Universe appears to be find tuned to support human life…or that it was prepared for human beings.

If not ID: Ten Billion Monkeys in Ten Billion Rooms

The "infinite universes" theory is truly an amazing theory.


Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible...It's actually happened!

It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There's a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn't get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States. There's even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine the possibilities!

I might sound like I'm joking, but actually I'm dead serious. To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.

Some people believe in God with a capital G.
And some folks believe in Chance with a Capital C. 

(Perry Marshall)

"Bad" Design

Neil deGrasse Tyson (The case for Bad Design)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCnGf37iiKU&feature=player_embedded