> Continuing the exchange on fine tuning and ID, Randy wrote:
>
> "I was focusing on the inability of this fune-tuned universe to bring forth
> life without 'form-imposing intervention'".
>
> But that's just the feature of ID that I find to be awkwardly inconsistent.
>
>
> The phenomenon of cosmological fine tuning points to the universe's
> remarkable ability to "bring forth" a diverse array of physical structures
> and forms--nucleons, atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, planets, stars,
> galaxies, and the like--from its most elementary form of energy. In
> agreement with the proponents of ID, I interpret that as evidence favoring
> the idea that the universe was thoughtfully conceptualized by its Source of
> being. What the preachers of naturalism take to be mere "anthropic
> cosmological coincidences" I take to be evidence of thoughtful
> conceptualization.
>
> (Tim Ikeda is correct in noting that this is an aesthetic argument; but
> this type of argument is common both within and outside of the sciences.)
>
> But proponents of ID want to say that this fine tuning is limited to the
> formational history of physical structures and does not extend to the
> formational history of biotic forms. I say, why not? (My proposal for a
> "robust formational economy" consistently incorporates both physical and
> biotic formational capabilities.)
>
> When confronted with evidence of fine tuning in the arena of the formation
> of physical structures, proponents of ID want to claim that evidence as
> favoring "design" (here 'design' is used in the sense of both thoughtfully
> conceptualized and equipped with the requisite capabilities for the
> actualization of structures).
>
> However, when confronted with evidence or argumentation for a similar
> degree of fine tuning in the properties and capabilities of chemical and
> biotic systems, proponents of ID adopt a completely different
> strategy--deny the presence of these "anthropic biological coincidences"
> (what I would call biological fine-tuning), deny that the universe has been
> gifted with the requisite capabilities to make the evolutionary development
> of life forms possible, and hypothesize the occurrence of accasional
> episodes of "intelligent design" (_now_ meaning the form-imposing action of
> an undesignated crafty molecular artisan--a substantially different meaning
> of 'design' from the one noted earlier).
>
> My limited point here is that the proponents of ID need to make a
> choice--EITHER 1) give up the use of cosmological fine-tuning as evidence
> for their position (it is _not_ evidence of _their brand_ of ID) and
> acknowledge it as evidence favoring the idea of a Creation optimally gifted
> with a robust formational economy, OR 2) adopt the consistent strategy of
> accepting the idea of biological fine-tuning and employ it in the same way
> as they now wish to employ cosmological fine-tuning.
>
> Howard Van Till
>
It seems to me that people like Hugh Ross are led to their position by
their interpretation of the evidence. They interpret the cosmological
evidence to indicate the necessity of fine-tuning(as I believe you do) and
they interpret the fossil and genetic evidence to indicate the
impossibility of evolution(as you do not). I'm sure that Ross would hold
that his interpretation of the evidence is consistent even if you wouldn't
agree that it's correct.
What do you see as the problem with my "automated-computer-factory-that-
can't-write_software" example to explain the way these two sets of data
are handled?