1. You made what I think is an essential distinction between "intelligent
intervention" (an act of "hands" or their divine equivalent) and
"intelligent design" (an act of mind, or Mind). If proponents of ID would
do this consistently we could have far more fruitful discussions than is
now common.
2. You say: "Thus, the issue seems to be one of evidence and detectability.
Do
TEs really claim there is *evidence* of design? For example, what is
the nature of this evidence such that it allows us to infer a designer
behind
the origin of the universe, yet not behind the origin of life?"
HVT: 2 comments:
(a) I think you have used the term 'origin' in two very different ways. In
referring to "the origin of the universe" you are talking about "the act of
giving being" to the whole system (which had no prior being). On the other
hand, in referring to "the origin of life" you are talking about "the
formation of a new type of structure" in the course of time within a
universe that already had being. It seems mandatory to me that these two
meanings not be confused for one another. The natural sciences are
competent, I believe, to investigate one but not the other.
(b) What evidence of "design" (which I take to mean "purposeful
conceptualization")? The character of any or all of the following"
The ability of quarks to form nucleons.
The ability of atomic nuclei and electrons to form atoms.
The periodic table and all of the atomic capabilities it represents.
The water molecule--its properties and capabilities.
The properties and capabilities of protein molecules.
The operation of gravity to form galaxies, stars and planets.
The thermonuclear fusion processes that make stars luminous.
Add as many entries of this sort as you like (their number is legion)
I make no claim that this is a "scientific" argument in the narrow sense,
but I challenge anyone to look at the universe in all the robustness of its
being and then say, "This required no purposeful conceptualization by a
Mind."
Howard Van Till