> >
> > Glenn Morton wrote:
> >
...
> > The ID group needs to cease looking for evidence of design in
> > biological systems. It isn't there. While I believe that the
> > universe is designed, I simply don't think that biological
> > systems are capable of yielding evidence for design. As such, we > >
should be honest with ourselves and our readers.
> > >>
> >
> > It does look increasingly like this is the case, however, I
> > would still prefer to wait and see. Whereas I suspect that
> > ID will fail to show irrefutable evidence of God, it may
> > prove useful in other areas of knowledge inquiry.
> >
> I think the evidence of design resides best in the anthropic
> principle. I know there are those who will disagree, but
> biologically, the world appears capable of evolving. While I
> believe that is because God pre-programmed things, I can't
> prove it.
>
Glenn,
Regarding the "Anthropic Principle", you may be interested in reading
an article in the November issue of "Discover" Magazine. It discusses
how the fundamental constants behind the universe are fine-tuned to
allow life to exist, and that if they change, the universe as we know
it and life itself would be impossible.
The article explores the possibility that our universe is
one of a possibly infinite number of universes (a "multiverse"),
and ours just happens to have the right numbers--otherwise we
wouldn't be here. An atheist could use this kind of reasoning
to avoid thinking about whether or not there may really be a Creator.
Since we have no way to detect a parallel universe other than our own
(outside of the "Sliders" sci-fi show :) ), this involves a leap
of faith, just as it is to believe that someone intentionally
adjusted the numbers.
Dale
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 22:35:47 EDT