Eduardo.
> ID and fine-tuning. Now what?
>
> Loren Haarsma (lhaarsma@retina.anatomy.upenn.edu)
> Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:56:28 -0500 (EST)
>
> As others have pointed out, Intelligent Design theory is composed of
> several elements. Different ID advocates stress different elements.
>
> Traditionally, both (1) the "fine-tuning" of natural laws and (2) the
> complexity of biological organisms, were considered signs of Intelligent
> Design. This certainly fits into the Christian (or more broadly,
> theistic) world-view. I know that both of those elements speak to me
> intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually, prompting me to humility
> and to worship the Creator.
>
> Currently, based upon what I've read, ID theory seems primarily ---
> almost exclusively --- engaged in arguing that biological history shows
> evidence of intelligent intervention. If this has become the goal of ID
> theory as currently practiced, then fine-tuning poses two problems to
> it. First, although fine-tuning is joyously effective at prompting
> worship in a theist, it is rather weak when used as evidence to convince
> an atheist. Second, emphasis on fine-tuning has the potential to
> undermine the goal of proving intelligent intervention. In most recent
> writings, modern ID theory at best ignores, at worst scorns, the
> suggestion that "intelligent design" can be seen in a biological
> complexity produced by finely tuned natural laws under the Designer's
> ordinary providential care and guidance.
>
> These posts are aimed at encouraging ID to consider some implications of
> their theory, implications which I don't think have been adequately
> discussed. In this case the question is: what will ID theory do about
> its old allies of fine-tuning and God's ordinary providential oversight.
>
> I've read ID writings which reject that fine-tuning and providential
> oversight have anything significant to do with design. I've read ID
> writings which argue that they are fine for physical creation, but
> inadequate for biological creation. I've read ID writings which find
> them theologically acceptable for biological creation, and try to treat
> the issue of intervention as an empirical matter. What are the
> implications of each choice?
>
> If ID theory rejects fine-tuning and ordinary providential oversight as
> having anything significant to do with Design, ignoring centuries of
> theological insight about God's creative and sustaining acts in other
> parts of creation, to focus exclusively on a search for signs of
> intelligent intervention --- *any* intelligent intervention (divine,
> alien, or otherwise) --- in earth's biological history, then ID will
> have to work very hard to justify why it should call itself a "theistic
> science."
>
> If ID theory decides that fine-tuning and providential oversight are
> theologically adequate for understanding Design in the creation of the
> sun, moon, stars, ocean, atmosphere, and dry land, but theologically
> inadequate for understanding design in the creation of plants and
> animals, then ID theory should lay its theological arguments on the
> table, expect them to be critiqued, accept that evolutionary
> creationists will offer theological arguments in favor of their own
> view, and give those arguments due consideration.
>
> If ID theory decides that fine-tuning and providential oversight are
> theologically acceptable for Design (however weak it may be at winning
> apologetic arguments), if ID theory insists that its disagreements with
> abiogenesis and macroevolution are essentially matters of *scientific*
> judgment, then ID should eschew all attempts by some advocates to wrap
> it in a "more theistic than thou" mantel; ID should embrace evolutionary
> creationists as its fellow theistic scientists; and it should give and
> receive scientific critiques without treating them as apologetic salvos.
>
> You see why I chose carbon formation as a watershed issue for ID theory.
> Recent writings have sloshed into several pathways, but the paths lead
> to different oceans.
>
> Loren Haarsma