Of course fine-tuning does not distinguish between apparant and actual design. therefor something else is needed.
SJ: An Intelligent Designer could design man's mind in eternity to understand
the underlying principles of the cosmos He was going to create, and then
realise that design in time by guiding (both naturally and supernaturally)
the building of man's mind through natural processes which He would set in
train.
Of course, but absent any evidence such statement of faith has nothing to add to science.
SJ: Moreover, ID claims it can explain better than materialism-naturalism why
there is a cosmos at all, why it is fine-tuned to permit life, and why the
human mind is `pre-adapted' to understand the underlying structure of that
cosmos.
Not at all. The ID explanation ignores the obvious alternative. We are fine-tuned to the cosmos.
SJ: My personal view is that ID should not be rushed into a hasty laying of all its
cards on the table, because it doesn't even know what they all are yet! It took
Darwinism about 70 years to develop the modern Neo-Darwinian theory of
evolution, and 120 years if we take into account Gould and Eldredge's
contribution.
That is very true. Science can take time to develop. So far ID has been disappointing in its attempts to reach a scientific status but I don't think that will prevent its proponents from continuing to try. It's the last
battle and as can be seen from the Wedge, a lot is at stake for ID proponents.
SJ: BTW, some of those who are anti-ID on this List might want to take on board
another point resolved at the NTSE conference:
"I should mention at least one other point upon which we reached a firm
consensus: that the time has come to conduct the debate on methodological
naturalism and theistic science on the merits (indeed, on the scientific merits)
of the case, and we should no longer tolerate ad hominem attacks on Prof.
Johnson, with attendant name-calling, bullying and intimidation ("he's just a
lawyer... he doesn't understand how science works...", etc.)." (Koons R.C.,
NTSE, 1997).
Of course he is right we should focus on the many examples which show that these observations were true. Exposing his rethoric is far more effective.