From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 14:30:58 EDT
Howard wrote:
> OK, Josh and Richard win the argument. Here's how it goes:
>
> 1. The universe appears to be cosmologically fine tuned to develop the
> physical/chemical/astronomical/geological support for living organisms to
> thrive. That's what it means to say that the universe was intelligently
> designed.
>
> 2. In spite of all of the partial evidence and plausibility arguments
> available to us, we must admit that we do not at the present time know
with
> complete certainty whether or not the universe was biologically fine tuned
> for the evolutionary development of every life form that has ever existed.
> It is logically possible, therefore, to posit that at least some life
forms,
> or parts of life forms (like the rotary motors on the bacteria in my
> intestines) could have been assembled only by the non-natural,
> form-conferring action of an unidentified, unembodied, choice-making
agent.
> That's what it means to say that the universe was intelligently designed.
>
> 3. Given the positive evidence for cosmological fine tuning, and given the
> lack of complete evidence for biological fine tuning, it must be the case
> that the universe was intelligently designed.
>
> QED
>
There are a couple of difficulties with your response Howard.
I: You failed to note the fundamental point of my argument. While it is true
that it is a powerful argument for ID, it was not presented as such. My
intent was to demonstrate that your efforts to show an inconstent use of ID
did not even form an argument, but were merely an *assertion* of RFEP. I
believe I succeeded. Do you concur?
II: Even if you took my argument as an argument for ID, you completely
mistated my point #2. I never spoke of any "partial evidence" or lack of
"complete certainty." I didn't speak of evolution at all - I spoke of
biogenesis and observations. The interesting thing here is that your effort
to confound the IDers has now opened the door to a clear demonstration that
they are the ones most in accord with scientific observations. Here is the
evidence:
1) Observations reveal fine-tuning of the universe (Tegmark even takes this
for granted).
2) Observations of biogenesis have never occurred.
ID Theory conforms to both observations #1 and #2.
RFEP Theory conforms only to #1 and asserts quite optimistically that
observations will "someday" support #2.
ID is therefore more in accord with currently scientific observations.
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 14:27:45 EDT