Re: Commentary: Design argument and beyond


"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bcff949pfuc063a1th5s7949muhm2dqujh@xxxxxxxxxx
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the core arguments of Intelligent Design is that the
fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or
fine-tuned to allow the universe and life as we know it to exist. They
are precisely the values needed to have a universe capable of
producing life.

In other words, everything in the cosmos tends toward humans, toward
making life possible and sustaining it. It refutes the evolutionary
biologists' claim that we are the product of mere chance, because the
universe is not so random after all; it has a beginning and was
designed for human beings.

There is evidence for this: the observed values of the four
fundamental forces of nature appear to be delicately balanced. A
slight increase in the strong nuclear force, for instance, would mean
all the hydrogen in the early universe would have been converted to
helium. There would be no water or the long-lived stable stars that
are essential for life.

Water itself, which is so vital to life, is something of a mystery
too. Unique amongst all other molecules, it's lighter in its solid
than liquid form. Ice floats. If it didn't, the oceans would freeze
from the bottom up which would not have allowed early life to sustain
itself in the seas.


Presenting information that "appears" ordered is NOT evidence ofr
initelligent design.
It is only a few steps above .... "See that tree ....... that proves there
is a god"!

"Design", "complexity" and other catchphrases used by zealots ARE NOT
scientific terms! There is no concensus of opinion about what they mean (any
more than "tall or short have absolute values), and there certainly isn't
any way to measure such terms.

Yes, things are unusual, more "detailed (called complex by some) and unique
than we can easily imagine - but that MEANS NOTHING as far as providing
evidence for a god (or ANY god).
IT is only another way of zealots saying "I am ignorant of such things - and
that means there MUST be a god".




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorials/Design_argument_and_beyond/articleshow/3326003.cms
or http://tinyurl.com/6gmnqt








J. Spaceman


.

Relevant Pages

  • WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALIVE FOREVER
    ... know what the universe is about, and I was ready to go at that time. ... I thanked the light of God with all my heart. ... "This is the RIVER OF LIFE. ... She had given up an hour and a half after finding me dead. ...
    (talk.philosophy.misc)
  • Re: Re: funny creationsist
    ... itself or came into existence without a cause. ... show me ANYTHING in this universe which just came into existence ... Your god isn't needed. ... What is the exact process by which this new life added material to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The basic problem I have with Intelligent Design
    ... that it MUST have come about by design. ... >> Even though I am a Christian and believe that God DID create everything, ... >> What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took, ... If the universe is designed for life ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Making money from Java
    ... to believe the scientific community that tells me they know how life formed, ... >> precision of design. ... that many scientists mistake for evolution when they see it in other ... give God an honest test. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: my worldview
    ... information processor itself must posses much rich information (by rich ... up with is an infinite series of Gods if we try to use the God ... that the roughly 15 billion years of the universe's life isn't even ... there you go, in one particular universe, on one particular planet, the ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading