Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What constitutes Intelligent design?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 46 of 61 (461402)
03-25-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Eclogite
03-25-2008 7:40 AM


Eclogite writes:
What if the design is resident within the existence, character and magnitude of these forces?
Let's say that it is. How would you go about establishing that scientifically through some program involving empirical observations and/or experiments?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 7:40 AM Eclogite has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 9:05 AM Percy has replied

  
Eclogite
Junior Member (Idle past 5845 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 47 of 61 (461403)
03-25-2008 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Percy
03-25-2008 8:58 AM


In exactly the way it is being done at present by many cosmologists and physicists. Investigate the criticality of the values of fundamental constants (Martin Ree's "Just Six Numbers")to a Universe that is - apparently - biophilic; explore the extent to which these constants are constrained; estimate the probability they would have values that favour the emergence of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 03-25-2008 8:58 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 03-25-2008 9:19 AM Eclogite has replied
 Message 49 by Rahvin, posted 03-25-2008 11:32 AM Eclogite has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 48 of 61 (461404)
03-25-2008 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Eclogite
03-25-2008 9:05 AM


And what values of these fundamental constants and these probabilities would constitute evidence for ID?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 9:05 AM Eclogite has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 12:18 PM Percy has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 49 of 61 (461408)
03-25-2008 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Eclogite
03-25-2008 9:05 AM


In exactly the way it is being done at present by many cosmologists and physicists. Investigate the criticality of the values of fundamental constants (Martin Ree's "Just Six Numbers")to a Universe that is - apparently - biophilic; explore the extent to which these constants are constrained; estimate the probability they would have values that favour the emergence of life.
This is a classic cart-before-horse argument.
The constants of the Universe are not set to be ideal for life. Rather, life arose because the conditions of the Universe were favorable.
It's like saying that the probability of life starting on Earth, where conditions are so great for life, is tiny compared to life starting on any of the other planets in our solar system where the conditions are far less favorable. There's no probability involved - life arose in the environment where conditions were favorable because conditions were favorable. Similarly, the conditions of our Universe make life a possibility, and so life was able to exist. There's no probability involved.
The argument that the favorability of conditions in our Universe, or on our planet, or anything else, is based entirely on personal incredulity. Yes, one can gain a sense of personal wonder and amazement that conditions happened to be just right for humanity to evolve - but humanity evolved in the way we did as our ancestors were forced to adapt to those conditions through natural selection. Given different conditions, life might still exist, simply in a different form - and whatever form of life it would be, it would exist in an environment whose conditions are favorable.
Let's lay a little game. Instead of the constants of the Universe like c, let's play with environmental differences right here on Earth.
What's the probability of conditions being just right for camels in the middle-eastern desert? I mean, if the temperature was significantly colder, or there was plentiful water, or any number of other environmental differences, camels would never have evolved as a successful species in that region. If the middle-eastern desert had conditions like those in Antarctica, camels would never have been able to evolve at all! Amazing, isn't it? See, the conditions of the middle-eastern deserts must have been set into place by an intelligent entity in order for camels to exist!
This argument is obviously silly. Camels evolved the way they did in response to their environment. We know the way evolution works - populations evolve to match their environments, not the other way around, and no goal is in place.
Evolution is the Blind Watchmaker - it's a completely mindless, unintelligent, inevitable process (given living organisms that reproduce imperfectly and limited resources, of course) that produces complex, highly diverse results. For all the wonder and amazement and personal incredulity, there is no intelligent agent at work here. Intelligence is demonstrably not required...and silly suggestions involving the probability of suitable conditions demonstrate ignorance of the real processes involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 9:05 AM Eclogite has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Eclogite, posted 03-26-2008 12:03 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Eclogite
Junior Member (Idle past 5845 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 50 of 61 (461424)
03-25-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
03-25-2008 9:19 AM


That is part of the active debate on this subject. Martin Rees The Astronomer Royal, for example, already considers the fine tuning of these constants remarkably unlikley. He uses this as evidence for the multiverse - a range of alternative universes of which ours is a rare fortuitous example in which life can emerge. However, I believe he acknowledges that an intelligent creator of a single universe is a plausible alternative.
A second part of this debate - one more relevant to a forum dedicated to evolution - lies in the biochemical field. Numerous authors express the view that life is inevitable in the Universe. (de Duve 1995; Ward & Brownlee 2003; Conway Morris 1998; etc) and some of these argue that this includes intelligent life. Williams and Frasto da Silva (2003) have made the case that thermodynamics and the laws of chemical interaction have created a strong direction to evolution. They are not unique in such a claim. Now direction does not require guidance, but the two are often associated.
As to the nub of your question - what values of these constants would constitue evidence - the existing values constitute provisional evidence for intelligent design, they simply do offer scientific proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 03-25-2008 9:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 03-25-2008 2:13 PM Eclogite has not replied
 Message 52 by Granny Magda, posted 03-25-2008 4:30 PM Eclogite has not replied
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 03-26-2008 9:02 AM Eclogite has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 51 of 61 (461441)
03-25-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Eclogite
03-25-2008 12:18 PM


That is part of the active debate on this subject. Martin Rees The Astronomer Royal, for example, already considers the fine tuning of these constants remarkably unlikley. He uses this as evidence for the multiverse - a range of alternative universes of which ours is a rare fortuitous example in which life can emerge.
Which isn't actually evidence - it's a reason to look for something, but it's really just personal incredulity.
However, I believe he acknowledges that an intelligent creator of a single universe is a plausible alternative.
"Plausable alternatives" in such a context tend to be misleading. It is a "plausible alternative" that we all live inside of the Matrix, and none of our observations are "real." No evidence, however, supports such an unfalsifiable, ultimately irrelevant suggestion.
A second part of this debate - one more relevant to a forum dedicated to evolution - lies in the biochemical field. Numerous authors express the view that life is inevitable in the Universe. (de Duve 1995; Ward & Brownlee 2003; Conway Morris 1998; etc) and some of these argue that this includes intelligent life. Williams and Frasto da Silva (2003) have made the case that thermodynamics and the laws of chemical interaction have created a strong direction to evolution. They are not unique in such a claim. Now direction does not require guidance, but the two are often associated.
As to the nub of your question - what values of these constants would constitue evidence - the existing values constitute provisional evidence for intelligent design, they simply do offer scientific proof.
The essential factors of evolution are:
a) existing life
b) imperfect reproduction
c) limited resources
That's all. If you're honestly suggesting that an intelligent entity is required to establish a system whereby life forms reproduce imperfectly (frequently with detrimental, and most often irrelevant results) in an environment with limited resources, then your "intelligent designer" is neither intelligent nor a designer.
Again you are putting the cart before the horse. The basic properties of the Universe are not set to be beneficial to life. Life arises in a way adapted to the properties of the Universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 12:18 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 52 of 61 (461458)
03-25-2008 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Eclogite
03-25-2008 12:18 PM


Just Six Numbers
That is part of the active debate on this subject. Martin Rees The Astronomer Royal, for example, already considers the fine tuning of these constants remarkably unlikley. He uses this as evidence for the multiverse - a range of alternative universes of which ours is a rare fortuitous example in which life can emerge. However, I believe he acknowledges that an intelligent creator of a single universe is a plausible alternative.
Does Rees consider design to be plausible? I'm not so sure of that, so I dug out my copy of "Just Six Numbers". The most relevant passage I could find was this;
quote:
Others adduce the 'tuning' of the numbers as evidence for a beneficent creator, who formed the universe with the specific intention of creating us (or, less anthropomorphically, of permitting intricate complexities to unfold). This is in the tradition of William Paley and other advocates of the so-called 'argument from design' for God's existence. Variants of it are espoused by eminent scientist-theologians such as John Polkinghorne; he writes that the universe is "not 'just any old world' but it's special and finely tuned for life because it is the creation of a creator who wills that it should be so'.
That hardly seems like the way to describe an idea which one sees as plausible. The comparison to Paley is especially unflattering. Rees is a churchgoer, but only out of tradition and tribal loyalty. I doubt that he does consider design to be a plausible hypothesis. If I am wrong, please cite a quote to back up your assertion.
direction does not require guidance
Well you said it. It doesn't require guidance, so the design hypothesis is speculative and unnecessary.
As to the nub of your question - what values of these constants would constitute evidence - the existing values constitute provisional evidence for intelligent design, they simply do offer scientific proof.
Again, with no hard evidence about the first origins of the universe and in the presence of other strong theories (such as the many-universes hypothesis), the values of Rees' six numbers don't even provide evidence of anything much. They offer us an opportunity for speculation, but that is all.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 12:18 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 61 (461563)
03-26-2008 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Eclogite
03-25-2008 12:18 PM


Eclogite writes:
As to the nub of your question - what values of these constants would constitue evidence - the existing values constitute provisional evidence for intelligent design, they simply do offer scientific proof.
For the sake of discussion let us grant your position, that there is evidence potentially supportive of a universe of purposeful design. What's the next step in the research program that will uncover evidence persuasive to the scientific community?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 12:18 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
Eclogite
Junior Member (Idle past 5845 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 54 of 61 (461580)
03-26-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rahvin
03-25-2008 11:32 AM


Sorry guys. I am yet again staggered by the dogmatic responses I am receiving from some of you and the apparent ignorance of how current these ideas are within segments of the scientific community. Nevertheless your comments do merit a serious reply yet my current work load is making more than an occassional snatched post rather difficult. Please accept the incompletness of my replies as a reflection of my limited time and my limited communication skills, not as evidence of the weakness of the ideas themselves.
The constants of the Universe are not set to be ideal for life. Rather, life arose because the conditions of the Universe were favorable.
How do you know the constants are not set to be ideal for life? From the enormous range of possible values for these constants only a very restricted range of each makes life possible. This demands an explanation. Three spring to mind:
1) Despite the enormous odds, things just happend to work out that way. This is basically the Weak Antrhopic Principle. I find the WAP to be something of a cop out.
2) This is only one of many, many universes, most of which cannot and do not contain life. We have some speculative mathematical expositions to support this notion, but no real evidence.
3) Against this backdrop the teleological explanation is surely one worth considering.
There's no probability involved - life arose in the environment where conditions were favorable because conditions were favorable.
This is an unsatisfactory explanation. Science seeks to provide explanations and saying 'that's just the way it is' is little better than saying 'God did it'. The favourable conditions of the environment - the remarkable favourable conditions of the environment - require an explanation. This was first pointed out by Henderson in 1913(?) in his work 'The Fitness of the Environment'. It has been amplified by others since.
Do you really think it is scientific to simply ignore this fact? Are you concerned that it is an area that would not lend itself to scientific investigation? I am at loss to understand your resistance.
The argument that the favorability of conditions in our Universe, or on our planet, or anything else, is based entirely on personal incredulity.
Please don't talk nonsense. Are you actually questioning the fine tuning of the fundamental constants? I am not, offhand, aware of any cosmologists or physicists who doubt this fine tuning. Some may favour explanations 1) or 2) above, but none base their belief in fine tuning upon a personal incredulity.
And do please note - I have no idea which of the three explanations is the correct one. I have a prejudice against the weakness of the WAP, but do not entirely rule it out. I am completely open minded on the issue,therefore patronising remarks such as those you employ in your last paragraph entirely miss the mark. Let's try and stay focused on the issues rather than engaging in a flame war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rahvin, posted 03-25-2008 11:32 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by teen4christ, posted 03-26-2008 1:46 PM Eclogite has not replied
 Message 56 by Organicmachination, posted 03-26-2008 1:46 PM Eclogite has not replied
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 03-26-2008 2:11 PM Eclogite has not replied
 Message 58 by lyx2no, posted 03-26-2008 2:48 PM Eclogite has not replied
 Message 59 by AZPaul3, posted 03-26-2008 3:17 PM Eclogite has not replied
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 03-26-2008 3:25 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 55 of 61 (461591)
03-26-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Eclogite
03-26-2008 12:03 PM


Eclogite writes
quote:
1) Despite the enormous odds, things just happend to work out that way. This is basically the Weak Antrhopic Principle. I find the WAP to be something of a cop out.
You are talking as if Earth is the only planet in the universe and that Sol is the only star in the universe.
If the constants are instead some other values different than they are now, given the infinite nature of the universe I'm pretty sure conditions favorable for life, different in nature perhaps, would have inevitably arisen somewhere else out there.
Your argument would have more merit if Earth is the only planet in the universe and somehow conditions are just right for life exist on this single planet.
quote:
2) This is only one of many, many universes, most of which cannot and do not contain life. We have some speculative mathematical expositions to support this notion, but no real evidence.
This statement makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Eclogite, posted 03-26-2008 12:03 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 56 of 61 (461592)
03-26-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Eclogite
03-26-2008 12:03 PM


Wow!
There is something fundamentally ambiguous about your probability argument. You feel as if the conditions for life are very improbable because they are totally tuned to exactly life's needs. But this is a position that can only be borne of a narrow outlook on probability and chance, and especially on evolution.
If the conditions had been any different, then a different form of life would have arisen, evolutionarily fit for that environment, that would proceed to conclude that its own environment was so improbable that it could only have come from God. This is the case of any other set of conditions in the universe. Any set of conditions that gave rise to any sort of life through evolution and natural selection would seem completely improbable to that life, if it gained an ability to ponder such things.
You're saying what someone would say when he or she saw a configurations of wildflowers on a hill that spelled out a word, namely, that that is completely improbable and must have been made by someone, while failing to realize that any other formation of flowers would be equally improbable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Eclogite, posted 03-26-2008 12:03 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 57 of 61 (461594)
03-26-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Eclogite
03-26-2008 12:03 PM


quote:
The constants of the Universe are not set to be ideal for life. Rather, life arose because the conditions of the Universe were favorable.
How do you know the constants are not set to be ideal for life? From the enormous range of possible values for these constants only a very restricted range of each makes life possible.
You're leaving out the most important part: Only a very restricted range of each makes life as we know it possible.
Remember my example of the camel? It evolved the way it did becasue of its environment. Given a diffrent Universe, different forms of life suited to that environment could arise.
The other flaw in your argument is your assumption that the constants of the Universe could possibly have any other value. If we were playing with dice, you could say the chances of any given number are one in six. For this example, you have no idea what values for each constant are possible or probable. We could be playing with a coin, a six-sided die, a 20-sided die...or this could simply be the only possibility. You can't establish probability without knowing how many other possibilities you're drawing from.
This demands an explanation. Three spring to mind:
1) Despite the enormous odds, things just happend to work out that way. This is basically the Weak Antrhopic Principle. I find the WAP to be something of a cop out.
"Enormous odds" are funny things. Does winning the lottery imply that the random number drawing was somehow tuned to favor the person who won?
Certainly not. Suggesting such a thing is silly. It's exactly the same with "probability" arguments surrounding the constants of the Universe.
2) This is only one of many, many universes, most of which cannot and do not contain life. We have some speculative mathematical expositions to support this notion, but no real evidence.
3) Against this backdrop the teleological explanation is surely one worth considering.
We know only that these are the constants of our Universe. We have no idea whether they could potentially have other values, and even if they could, we know that life adapts to the environment, not the other way around. You're seriously suggesting that an intelligent entity designed the arabian deserts so that camels could live there, rather than camels evolving adaptations for the existing environment.
quote:
There's no probability involved - life arose in the environment where conditions were favorable because conditions were favorable.
This is an unsatisfactory explanation.
Whether you are "satisfied" or not is irrelevant. We know from direct observation that life arises in any given form in a response to its environment. We have no evidence suggesting that environments are "tuned" by an intelligent entity to suit those life forms. If the latter was the case, we should not see extinctions - the intelligent entity would "tune" the conditions for whatever creature it wanted.
Science seeks to provide explanations and saying 'that's just the way it is' is little better than saying 'God did it'.
Science doesn't typically concern itself with "why." It concerns itself with "how." We observe processes and model them, and then test the models through experimentation and observation.
The "goddidit" response is always a silly leap in logic as a response to ignorance. When an unknown is encountered, "god" is exclaimed. Parsimony so far has dictated that "god" is irrelevant at best, and nonexistent at worst.
The favourable conditions of the environment - the remarkable favourable conditions of the environment - require an explanation.
You're looking for meaning because you feel special. Stop. You aren't. None of us really are any more special than we decide for ourselves. Grow some humility, get over yourself, and realize that there is no evidence that the Universe was created specifically for you, and that we came into existence as the result of perfectly natural processes in response to the natural laws of this Universe. Once again - we, and everything else alive, evolved in response to the environment. Given different conditions, life would have evolved differently or not at all.
This was first pointed out by Henderson in 1913(?) in his work 'The Fitness of the Environment'. It has been amplified by others since.
Do you really think it is scientific to simply ignore this fact? Are you concerned that it is an area that would not lend itself to scientific investigation? I am at loss to understand your resistance.
It's not "resistance." It's identification of a flawed and silly argument. You're putting the cart before the horse.
quote:
The argument that the favorability of conditions in our Universe, or on our planet, or anything else, is based entirely on personal incredulity.
Please don't talk nonsense. Are you actually questioning the fine tuning of the fundamental constants? I am not, offhand, aware of any cosmologists or physicists who doubt this fine tuning. Some may favour explanations 1) or 2) above, but none base their belief in fine tuning upon a personal incredulity.
Of course the claim that the constants are "fine-tuned" by an unknown entity to be suitable for life is based on incredulity! "Wow, it sure is remarkable that the Universe is structured in such a way that life exists. It's unlikely that this is just natural, a deity must be involved!"
That is an argument from personal incredulity.
The Universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. Life is well-adapted to the environment. You can see this for yourself. Take a population of organisms and make a change in their environment. Watch as the population diverges from the original environment and adapts to the new conditions through a few generations.
I can't say this enough times: you're putting the cart before the horse.
And do please note - I have no idea which of the three explanations is the correct one. I have a prejudice against the weakness of the WAP, but do not entirely rule it out. I am completely open minded on the issue,therefore patronising remarks such as those you employ in your last paragraph entirely miss the mark. Let's try and stay focused on the issues rather than engaging in a flame war.
"Flame wars" are not permitted on this site. Pointing out the flaws in an argument, however, are the entire point. If you think having your argument de-constructed and shown to have the strength of wet tissue paper is flaming, I should really introduce you to sites where "flame wars" are allowed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Eclogite, posted 03-26-2008 12:03 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 58 of 61 (461598)
03-26-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Eclogite
03-26-2008 12:03 PM


Eclogite writes:
Sorry guys. I am yet again staggered by the dogmatic responses I am receiving from some of you and the apparent ignorance of how current these ideas are within segments of the scientific community. [Some other stuff.] Let's try and stay focused on the issues rather than engaging in a flame war.
You've got a point there. Two even.
How do you know the constants are not set to be ideal for life?
Sorry to be dogmatic and all, but the burden of proof is yours.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

Kindly
Are you gonna' eat that donut?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Eclogite, posted 03-26-2008 12:03 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 59 of 61 (461599)
03-26-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Eclogite
03-26-2008 12:03 PM


How do you know the constants are not set to be ideal for life? From the enormous range of possible values for these constants only a very restricted range of each makes life possible.
What makes you think these constraints are set to be ideal for life?
Just because life is here does this mean the universe was tailor made to produce us?
If we look at the evidence we presently have, we have evidence for a big whopping number of all of one instance in the entire universe of life.
That there is a good probability of life being elsewhere in the universe not withstanding, we have no idea how prevalent that life could be around the cosmos nor even how to go about making an estimate. I love the Drake equation but its parameters are at present way too subjective to be of any real use.
So we do not see a universe teeming with abundant life as one might expect in a universe “fine tuned to produce” life.
What we do see are stellar furnaces by the hundreds of billions congregated in hundreds of billions of stellar communities.
Seems to me the evidence we have indicates that the parameters of this universe are most conducive to creating suns, not people.
Life appears to be a trivial incidental coincidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Eclogite, posted 03-26-2008 12:03 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 61 (461601)
03-26-2008 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Eclogite
03-26-2008 12:03 PM


Eclogite writes:
Sorry guys. I am yet again staggered by the dogmatic responses I am receiving from some of you and the apparent ignorance of how current these ideas are within segments of the scientific community.
How do you know the constants are not set to be ideal for life?
What makes you think they are? Optimally one would seek positive evidence, not a lack of negative evidence. I have no evidence in my possession against a designer, and I also have no evidence in my possession against the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why should I prefer one over the other? But on the other hand, I have tons of evidence for natural processes producing what we see around us.
There's also the infinite regression problem. A designer must be at least as finely tuned as the universe itself, immediately raising the question of who designed the designer.
Another problem, already mentioned by others, is the inherent assumptions in your arguments. One of your assumptions is that the constants could be different than they are, but you fail to consider that perhaps there are natural principles of which we're yet unaware and by which the values are determined.
Another of your assumptions is that conditions are particularly favorable to life in this universe. But perhaps this universe is, on average compared to other universes, hostile to life, and in other universes most planets on most solar systems would be teeming with complex life. Perhaps our universe is just a terrible universe to be stuck in because in this universe most stars have giant planets inhabiting the inner solar system that are incapable of supporting complex life and that clear the inner solar system of smaller planets that could support life, while in other universes solar systems similar to our own are incredibly common.
I don't think anyone here has any particularly strong objection to the opinion that design is a possibility. But if you instead want to argue that the evidence strongly suggests design and that those who don't accept this are ignorant or dogmatic, well, then there will be plenty of strong objections.
Let's try and stay focused on the issues rather than engaging in a flame war.
If I could step just briefly into Admin mode, please leave moderation issues to the moderators. Your opening sentences about "dogmatic responses" and "apparent ignorance" (quoted above) were the most concerning I've seen so far in this thread. Let moderators like myself take care of the flame war possibilities.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Eclogite, posted 03-26-2008 12:03 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024