>Yesterday somebody said that He/she could not understand how IDers accept the
>fine tuning in the making of elements (i.e., carbon) during the evolution of
>stars and not accept at the same time the fine-tuning of ?something? in
>biology that lead to bioevolution. The distinction was subtle enough to
>think about it. I'm not an IDer but I'm a sympathizer. I think that the
>analogy does not applied. Fine tuning has occurred (apparently) throughout
>nature. We don't know enough of the internal structures of the stars and of
>mechanisms that take place in them to argue that an ID must have put that or
>this there so that enough carbon could be produced.
I think we know more (empirically) about the internal dynamics of
stars than we do of cells. We're pretty sure we know how carbon was
produced. In the past, ID embraced the peculiarities of carbon
production --- even though it happened by natural processes --- as
design.
>We do know of structures
>in the cell that challenge any evolutionary explanation. In any case, IDers
>are not claiming (in my opinion) that everything is ID, rather they are
>finding things that *seem* to be IC, and if they are truly IC they really
>challenge any evolutionary pathway in favored of an ID.
This is the sort of answer I was hoping to generate. (My question
was, why does ID consider fine-tuning of natural processes "adequate"
for carbon production and "inadequate" for biological history.)
According to this answer, it is a matter of scientific judgment. The
complexity (especially irreducible complexity) of cells are judged to
be beyond evolutionary explanations. (I judge from silence that
philosophical and theological factors aren't the important ones on
this *particular* issue.) I expect your answer agrees with many "ID
sympathizers," but I'd like to hear from some more. I'd like to hear
a consensus, or at least a delimited range of opinions.
Loren Haarsma