[snipping, but hopefully not taking too much out of context...]
> 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."
I find that notion aesthetically more pleasing as well. But I'm not
sure that the universe was necessarily designed to cater to my
or anyone else's tastes (Because if it was, things would be m-u-c-h
different, IMO). I think that's why I'm not completely convinced
that we can use the concept of a fine-tuned universe to decide
whether the "ID" or the "robust economy" scenario should be preferred.
Perhaps there are additional Biblical justifications to be considered.
Then again, I'm not at all convinced that the ability to observe
a "finely tuned" universe means that an intelligent agent must
have existed to generate one -- So perhaps I'm already a bit out the
the "loop" on this discussion. Our sample set is one and we can't
"see" beyond this one at the moment. Hubert Yockey's favorite
German phrase comes to mind...
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)