From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 08:48:51 EDT
You want to go back to earlier posts? OK, here goes.
>From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
> You present your argument as a criticism of how IDers change the definition
> of ID. But I don't think this is what is really going on at all. Your
> argument actually seems to be about the kind of Universe we live in. It
> seems to boil down to saying God could not or would not create a Universe
> where these two statements are both true:
>
> 1) The Universe had to be fine-tuned for life-supporting chemistry, stars,
> etc.
> 2) The Universe could not produce life on its own.
"could not or would not..."? I make no argument re "could not or would not."
That's putting words into my mouth. I am simply stating my own
presuppositions as plainly as I can, without giving a long explanation re
reasons for choosing those presuppositions.
> As I see it, this is not an argument at all. It appears to be nothing but a
> reassertion of faith in RFEP.
In the context of this thread, OK. I don't recall claiming any more than
that.
> I see absolutely nothing logically
> inconsistent between propositions #1 and #2.
Of course not. But in choosing presuppositions, logical consistency is not
the only or primary consideration. It would be just as logically consistent
to replace #2 with the proposition, "Each biblical 'kind' was independently
created by God." However, I think we would agree that such a proposition
deserves evaluation on the basis of other than purely logical
considerations.
> Neither do I see any evidence
> that contradicts either #1 or #2. In fact, our current state of knowledge
> supports both #1 (fine-tuning has been observed)
Let's look at your statement #1 again.
>> 1) The Universe had to be fine-tuned for life-supporting chemistry, stars,
>> etc.
"Had to be"? What evidence is there for the necessity of fine-tuning? If you
want to be precise, there is only evidence that the fine-tuning hypothesis
provides a satisfying scientific explanation for the properties and
parameter values observed. One could, with the logical consistency that you
proclaim so valuable, propose that God simply gave being to a 'mature'
universe having this appearance. Similarly, one could, with logical
consistency, propose that God simply gave being to a set of species that
only appear to be genealogically related. Dependence on logical consistency
alone will get you nowhere.
> In fact, our current state of knowledge
> supports both #1 (fine-tuning has been observed) and #2 (biogenesis has
> never been observed).
But, of course, your #2 appeals only to a lack of evidence. You could craft
a book full of loony hypotheses and declare that none of them were
contradicted by #2. Not a big victory there for ID.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 08:50:50 EDT