Fine tuning of the Universe

[TagliatelliMonster]

The ID position is that there is intelligence evident in nature. Any discussion of the ID can be restricted to that and that alone.

Then why don't you?

Let's take a fresh start. Present your non-religious, scientific ID model.

You may start by defining the terms "intelligent" and "design".
You may then continue describing the null hypothesis and a testable method by which "design" can be detected.
Lastly, you may explain how this model can be falsified.

 

[Radrook]

ID is just a crutch for injured faith.

The ID proposition has been in existence for the entire recorded history of mankind.
Atheism is a recent phenomenon.

 

[durangodawood]

The ID proposition has been in existence for the entire recorded history of mankind......

Correct, if ID is basically warmed-over creationism, and not science at all.

 

[Radrook]

Correct, if ID is basically warmed-over creationism, and not science at all.

I meant in the basic sense of proposing that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. I didn't mean that it was identical to how ID is formally represented today.

BTW
I don't consider selective blindness and inconsistency of policy science.

 

[KCfromNC]

The ID position is that there is intelligence evident in nature.

No, that's not correct. The ID position is to pretend that they're not really creationists trying to illegally sneak their religion into public schools.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The ID proposition has been in existence for the entire recorded history of mankind.

Yes. Creation myths are many in number and very old.

Atheism is a recent phenomenon.

Not really. More common today? Sure. New? Nah...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I meant in the basic sense of proposing that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. I didn't mean that it was identical to how ID is formally represented today.

BTW
I don't consider selective blindness and inconsistency of policy science.

Just wondering...

Are you familiar with the wedge strategy?
Maybe you should be.

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

No, that's not correct. The ID position is to pretend that they're not really creationists trying to illegally sneak their religion into public schools.

Oh really? Then I guess we simply agree to disagree.

 

[Radrook]

Just wondering...

Are you familiar with the wedge strategy?
Maybe you should be.

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia

Are you familiar with selective blindness and inconsistency of policy? Maybe YOU should be.

Just wondering...

 

[Radrook]

Correct, if ID is basically warmed-over creationism, and not science at all.

That's merely your opinion and opinions come a dime a dozen.

 

[Radrook]

total

Yes. Creation myths are many in number and very old.



Not really. More common today? Sure. New? Nah...

Atheism has a certain knack for tagging everything that contradicts it as myth.


BTW
Obviously I didn't mean atheism was totally non-existent in the past.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you familiar with selective blindness and inconsistency of policy? Maybe YOU should be.
Just wondering...

Good luck showing that I engage in that concerning this ID topic.

I encourage you to do so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's merely your opinion and opinions come a dime a dozen.

It was also the "opinion" of the judge at the Dover trial.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

total

Atheism has a certain knack for tagging everything that contradicts it as myth.

Ken Miller and Francis Collins aren't atheists.
Neither was the judge at the Dover trial.

BTW
Obviously I didn't mean atheism was totally non-existent in the past.

Actually, that was exactly what your sentence implied.

If something is a "recent phenomena", then it didn't exist prior to it. On the account of it being recent.

 

[KCfromNC]

Oh really? Then I guess we simply agree to disagree.

Disagree with me, the people who made up ID and the courts who removed it from public schools. Yep, you're free to disagree with all of them if it makes you feel better.

 

[Radrook]

Ken Miller and Francis Collins aren't atheists.
Neither was the judge at the Dover trial.




Actually, that was exactly what your sentence implied.

If something is a "recent phenomena", then it didn't exist prior to it. On the account of it being recent.

I meant to say that its popularity has surged and not that it was totally inexistent.
As for the trial, I am not familiar with the details. However, the claim that any particular judge is Christian proves NOTHING in my view concerning his reliability or even the authenticity of the claim. In any case, even if the trial was lost via bungling, or chicanery, it still leaves the ID concept unscathed and far more acceptable than the mindless abiogenesis fantasy.

 

[bhsmte]

I meant to say that its popularity has surged and not that it was totally inexistent.
As for the trial, I am not familiar with the details. However, the claim that any particular judge is Christian proves NOTHING in my view concerning his reliability or even the authenticity of the claim. In any case, even if the trial was lost via bungling, or chicanery, it still leaves the ID concept unscathed and far more acceptable than the mindless abiogenesis fantasy.

If I were you, I would stay away from reading the transcripts of the Dover trial and Behe's testimony. It will be highly depressing for you.

 

[Radrook]

If we find the tuner, then I'll believe in a tuning.

But since a tuning is present-then it is logical to infer a tuner.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As for the trial, I am not familiar with the details.

As a cdesign proponentsist yourself, I urge you to inform yourself, then.

However, the claim that any particular judge is Christian proves NOTHING in my view concerning his reliability or even the authenticity of the claim.

It does, if the claim is that ID is being rejected "because of atheism".

In any case, even if the trial was lost via bungling, or chicanery, it still leaves the ID concept unscathed and far more acceptable than the mindless abiogenesis fantasy.

The trial proved that it is nothing but creationism disguised as a lab coat.
Again: inform yourself.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The universe is more finely-tuned for the existence of black holes than it is for the existence of life. Black holes are numerous, can survive anywhere in the universe, and are an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

If every single star had a habitable planet around it then, by volume, 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,1% of the universe would be habitable by life as we know it.

As for human life, we can't survive on the majority of this planet, let alone the universe as a whole. Even in the places on this planet that we can survive we can't do so unaided; often needing, at the very least, clothes to avoid freezing to death or dying of heatstroke. I live in a relatively temperate climate and yet, given that my breath is visible, I think nobody would dispute that I couldn't be naked outside for very long before I needed to have some extremities amputated, at the very least.

But, of course, the biggest objection to the idea that the universe was created for our benefit is that that gets the chain of logic backwards. You would expect any life existing within a life-bearing environment to be suited to that environment. It is, in fact, impossible for it to be any other way. To borrow from Douglas Adams, it's like looking at a puddle and expressing wonderment that the hole it is in is "fine-tuned" exactly to the shape of the water within it. That life suits the environment it is in is not only a trivial, expected observation, but it's also exactly what you would expect of life which arose and evolved by natural processes.