In your reponse to my post on the anthropic principle, you
seemed to reserve special ire for an argument you seem to
assume I am advancing which I am NOT advancing. You have
stated over and over again that the largest burden of proof
is on those arguments that would claim a "super-natural"
designer. I simply don't believe that anthropic arguments
can ever take us this far. The most they can provide evidence
for, in my opinion, is that the universe was purposefully
designed in its conception and execution...that there was some
mindful intention behind its existence. (Howard, I am trying to
remember your terms but I probably don't have them exactly
right.)
This would correspond to the "super-intelligence" that "monkeyed
with the laws of physics" referred to by Fred Hoyle, who is not
a theist but is nevertheless sympathetic to this view. But
I see no way, with only this evidence, to infer the IDENTITY of the designer.
I am being totally honest here...I don't think natural theology
(the old word for this subject) can hope from this evidence to
go beyond the conclusion of DESIGN to the identity of the DESIGNER.
I know this was not the only objection you raised to anthropic
arguments for design, but it seemed to be the one you were most
passionate about.
Stan Zygmunt