EvC Forum: What is design? Can we not find evidence of design on earth or in the universe?

Doubting Too writes:

Ok, then. Just this one. I promise I won't reply anymore...unless you TEMPT me again :=) ( How do I get that smiley thingy?)

Alright, let's see if I can then

(to get that smiley thingy, simply leave out the = it should then look like this

)

Check this article: IsThere Scientific Evidence for Existence of God?

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

This guy just outdid me! I was just trying to prove there is Purpose of the exact distance, the condition on earth, etc blah... blah.

In so many words--mostly technical--he offers proof of design. IMO, he differentiated "designoid", as in that JFK shadow in a mountain in Hawaii ( sounds your pothole, eh) and "designed" ( the Mt Rushmore, thingy).

Here is a portion of his treatise if you kinda lazy to go over the 26 pages of discussion.

As I said before I won't debate links, it's against the forum rules. I will comment on the piece of text you quoted though.

Dr. W. Bradley writes:

To summarize, for life to exist, we need an orderly (and by implication, intelligible) universe. Order at many different levels is required.

Problem right there. How does he know that? He could be very wrong, we only have one universe to study. In a different universe, chaotic perhaps, how is he to know there could not be life?

For instance, to have planets that circle their stars, we need Newtonian mechanics operating in a three-dimensional universe.

Newton's been outdone by Einstein some 100 years ago.

For there to be multiple stable elements of the periodic table to provide a sufficient variety of atomic "building blocks" for life, we need atomic structure to be constrained by the laws of quantum mechanics.

In a different universe, the building blocks for life could very well be different to ours.

We further need the orderliness in chemical reactions that is the consequence of Boltzmann's equation for the second law of thermodynamics.

In a different universe there might very well be different laws of thermodynamics.

And for an energy source like the sun to transfer its life-giving energy to a habitat like Earth, we require the laws of electromagnetic radiation that Maxwell described.

In a different universe...etc. Are we beginning to see a pattern yet?

Our universe is indeed orderly, and in precisely the way necessary for it to serve as a suitable habitat for life.

That's another mistake, which I think was pointed out in the beginning of this thread. Life on Earth fits so perfectly because it evolved to fit the conditions of the Earth, not the other way around.

The wonderful internal ordering of the cosmos is matched only by its extraordinary economy. Each one of the fundamental laws of nature is essential to life itself.

To this my response is the same as to the very first line I quoted:

How does he know that? He could be very wrong, we only have one universe to study. In a different universe, chaotic perhaps, how is he to know there could not be life?

A universe lacking any of the laws shown in Table 1 would almost certainly be a universe without life.

Again, how does he know?

Many modern scientists, like the mathematicians centuries before them, have been awestruck by the evidence for intelligent design implicit in nature's mathematical harmony and the internal consistency of the laws of nature.

And a great many more say there is no such evidence AT ALL.

Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies writes:

All the evidence so far indicates that many complex structures depend most delicately on the existing form of these laws.

Of course, they evolved to fit those rules.

It is tempting to believe, therefore, that a complex universe will emerge only if the laws of physics are very close to what they are.

Bolding mine.

Again, he BELIEVES this. As a matter of fact, the way this quote is put, it makes me think he is actually going to say: "But of course, that is not the case".

The laws, which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously, seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.

Again, bolding mine.

This sounds again like he is going to say: "But of course, that is not the case".

If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose include us

Yes, IF it is the product of design. However NOWHERE have they shown this to be the case.

Doubting Too writes:

Yes, Huntard and I included. Common, friend, capitulate... so I can give you my blessing.

Pls. don't point out "argument by authority" or something. Courts do that. You and I do that, although may be unconsciously, for where did we get our "knowledge" of things but from authorities like teachers, etc?

Common, say: P3 is valid! Message 35

I think I have avoided telling you the authority thingy. I think however, that you'll find me unconvinced after reading my comments. Your blessings though, are always welcome.

Edited by Huntard, : edited in link to message 35

I hunt for the truth

0 online now:
Newest Member:	Skylink
Post Volume:	Total: 919,430 Year: 6,687/9,624 Month: 27/238 Week: 27/22 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/0