From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 15:08:55 EDT
From: "Debbie Mann" <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>
> I disagree with your interpretation on biology. The contention is that
> leaving the development of life to an untuned or random system means that
> the conditions just don't add up. In other words God WOULD have to tune the
> conditions in order for life to have developed as it did within the
> calculated age of the universe. I believe this is a successful argument on
> the part of ID, just using indirect methods instead of direct. "Proving by
> contradiction."
I'm afraid we're talking past one another. What you describe is not the
usual ID argument. Let me try to be more explicit.
I agree that a person could craft a reasonable argument that the universe is
"fine-tuned" (that is, it has -- or was given -- just the right resources,
potentialities and capabilities) in such a way that the full range of
physical structures (atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars, planets, etc) and
life forms could develop (evolve) in the course of time (about 14 billion
years).
My point is that ID advocates like Steve Meyer appear to split this into two
parts:
1) the universe IS cosmologically fine-tuned in such a way that the full
range of PHYSICAL STRUCTURES (atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars, planets,
etc) could develop (evolve) in the course of time (about 14 billion years)
and provide a suitable PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT for carbon-based life forms to
function. This is counted as evidence that the universe was "intelligently
designed." The ID argument here is FOR the idea that the universe was
cosmologically fine-tuned for the evolution of a suitable physical
environment for life.
2) the universe IS NOT biologically fine-tuned in such a way that the full
range of life forms could develop (evolve) in the course of time (about 14
billion years) without additional occasional episodes of non-natural,
form-conferring action called "intelligent design." The ID argument here is
AGAINST the idea that the universe was biologically fine-tuned for the
evolution of life, even if it was cosmologically fine tuned for the
evolution of a suitable physical environment for life to function.
I see this approach both as an inconsistent use of the term "intelligent
design" and an inconsistent rhetorical strategy.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 15:37:40 EDT