Re: re:fine tuning

From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Apr 12 2003 - 09:58:39 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: Benjamin Wiker on ID (fwd)..Fine Tuning"

    BlankDebbie Mann wrote:

    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."

    Let's assume an "intelligent designer" intervenes (or "tunes") continually or sporadically in the process of life on earth to cause new life forms to come into existence, or for existing life forms to sport new intricately-designed, adaptive contraptions. Okay, what explains the failed attempts? Why no intervention to prevent animals from going extinct because they could not adapt to a changing environment? What about genetic defects? Why no intervention to correct over 3,000 genetic diseases that befall human beings due to imperfections in our DNA?

    If you want to give credit to a disembodied creator for all the positive effects, who or what do you blame for the imperfections? This, I believe, is the major flaw in ID rationale.

    I prefer to believe that the Creator (God) empowers nature, and nature conforms to prescribed rules. Just as there are physical laws, there appear to be certain natural laws in place that allow life on earth to adapt and evolve without divine intervention. I think that is a better model to begin with than the one ID proponents advocate.

    Now all we have to do is discover the rules.

    Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
    Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
    www.genesisproclaimed.org


    Blank_Bkgrd.gif

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 12 2003 - 09:58:50 EDT