Re: somewhat OT: How Do We Get from A to Alpha

Robert Carnegie wrote:
On May 22, 3:33 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Will in New Haven wrote:
Even if we admit, if only for the sake of argument and outside a
science class, that the universe is so awesome and wondrous that we
just have to think it is the product of some supernatural being or
agency. Even if we ignore the question of where that being or agency
came from. Even if we are convinced that ID has a point.
How do we get from there to the idea that there is this creator god
who told bronze age middle eastern tribesmen his will and we should
follow it. How do we get from there to the idea that god told this one
guy, Mohammed, all the truth that we need to know. For that matter,
how do we get from there to Hinduism, Jainism or the Flying Spaghetti
Monster?
How do we geet from "the world is so wonderful that there must be a
god" to "god is really going to be pissed if you *** that corrections
officer's wife?"
What _good_ does ID or similar general speculation do those who would
tell us that they know exactly what is good foru us and can it help us
choose among their competing ideas?
Well, the basic decision of yours that they're trying to influence is,
who was right about God, was it the family priest or Richard Dawkins?
If evollution is wrong, Richard Dawkins loses.
I wasn't aware that the choice was binary. Which was Will's point.

I think that what I proposed is a "false dichotomy", but also a real-
life situation - in choosing between viewpoints, you are choosing to
agree or disagree with fellow humans who hold those viewpoints, and
for a social species, that is an important dimension. I guess it's
kind of artificial to include Richard Dawkins in your social space,
but, well, you can read his Web site and his books...

If you were intending to simulate a not very aware creationist's idea of choice, you have done well. And I have argued against your simulated persona. If IDers really are trying to influence a basic decision of yours, it's still your responsibility that the decision not be a silly one based on a false dichotomy.

And it should also be noted that you have confused evolution with the
origin of the universe/life.

I didn't introduce that - "if we are convinced that ID has a point"
was one of the original terms. Looking at it again, "convinced" seems
an odd choice and I'm not sure what the "point" is. As far as origin
of present species is concerned, either the theory of natural
selection is credible or it isn't. ID as we know it is merely the
assertion that it isn't. That one or more features of natural living
things cannot reasonably be accounted for by natural selection. But
surely that position can't "have a point", it can only be true or
false. Am I being too picky about something raised casually?

Yes. And you're wrong anyway. ID is not merely the claim that natural selection is unable to account for all features of life. After all, I would support that claim too. ID is a positive claim that god -- excuse me, an unknown and unknowable designer -- is required to explain many features of life and/or the universe. Some forms of ID are quite compatible with some forms of evolution, and some forms of ID are irrelevant to biological evolution.

There also is the idea that physics and chemistry favour the creation
of biological life by providing sophisticated interactions of matter,
the matter itself, and a fantastically long time of cosmic activity
that allows interesting things to happen, but that isn't "Intelligent
Design" - or is it?

It is if that favoring was itself designed.

Hmm - Wikipedia for ID says "Intelligent design
proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology, most
notably an argument based on the concept of the fine-tuning of
universal constants". But I think they also occasionally ride in
automobiles. Is "Fine-tuned Universe" an intelligent design
argument?

Yes, both sociologically and logically. IDers use the fine-tuning argument frequently, and it does require an intelligent designer.

Surely if the universe was found to be less hospitable to
natural life, the fact that natural life does exist would look more
like design. If the universe is very favourable to natural life, then
it is more difficult to infer design that gives particular living
things a helping hand. They most likely got there on their own.

The point of intelligent design (and there is a point -- the whole movement is there for a purpose, not just to search for truth) is that god created life and/or the universe, and that either or both can't be explained without him . How he did it is secondary. There are IDers who see his entire effort as having been spent in that fine-tuning, which allowed us to arrive naturally. Michael Denton, for example.

.

Loading