" Great insight. But perhaps your conclusion does not necessarily follow.
Perhaps the "ID argument" should be reworded like this:
The universe gives evidence of being designed in the same way a
computer does. Although a computer cannot produce a software program
without form-imposing intervention it does facilitate the production of
this program and allow for it's continued existence after it's produced.
In the same way, although the universe does not make the existence of
life inevitable, it does provide a well-designed environment to support
life once it has been created.
What do you think?"
1. I liked the part about "great insight" the best.
2. My comments were directed to the way in which ID is ordinarily presented
by its proponents.
3. What about your analogy to the "desgned" computer?
First, a computer is not only "designed," but it is also also
"constructed." So far that's exactly the same approach taken by most
proponents of ID. The ID'd universe fails to have the requisite capabilties
to bring about the assembly of a few key forms. Hence the need for episodes
of "extranatural assembly."
The phenomenon of fine-tuning, on ther other hand, refers to the ability of
the most fundamental constituents of the universe to self-assemble (by
divine intention, I would add) into the various structures (nucleons,
atomic nuclei, atoms, stars, galaxies, etc.) now seen. This ability to
self-assemble is part of what I call the "robust formational economy
principle."
So, to make the anaolgy work, I think you would have to propose a computer
that had the ability to assemble itself from fundamental matter, but
nonetheless (however surprising in this context) did not have the ability
to program itself. Hence the need for "extra-computorial programming." Is
this what you intended?
Howard Van Till