tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post1790981966716950333..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: `The building of carbon depends on a moustache ... of oxygen on a mole, and ... of ... dysprosium... on a slight scar over the right eye' (Hoyle) #3Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-26719428765965823042007-04-12T08:28:00.000+08:002007-04-12T08:28:00.000+08:00I inadvertently deleted this comment by "Unguided"...I inadvertently deleted this comment by "Unguided" when I meant to publish it:<BR/><BR/>>Stephen I struggle to see how you and the various people you have quoted can say that the laws of physics and chemistry have been designed when you have nothing to compare them against. <BR/><BR/>As Dembski has shown in his "The Design Inference" (1998) and "Intelligent Design" (1999), humans intuitively and <I>rightly</I> make a design inference when there is a combination of: 1) very low probability and; 2) the fitting of an independent specification.<BR/><BR/>In the case of the fine-tuning of the initial conditions, constants and laws of the Universe, to permit life, both apply (to put it mildly).<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, those who want to deny design (like someone who adopts as his pseudonym "Unguided") can.<BR/><BR/>But then the Bible in <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%201:18-20;&version=31;" REL="nofollow">Romans 1:18-20</A> says that those who do supress that knowledge of God are "without excuse." <BR/><BR/>>There are plenty of things that look designed to some people but others with greater knowledge know are not. If you think something looks designed and I think it does not, what happens then? Why is your opinion any more valid than mine? If you want the laws of the universe to be evidence of design, don't you need to be able to demonstrate that these laws could have developed in a different manner but didn’t because the designer interfered like this? The default hypothesis from an active designer does not have to be a multitude of universes, there could just be one and it is what it is. Again if you have some evidence to show there are a multitude of universes that are all different because the designer did not intervene, or intervened in a different way, that would add weight to your argument.Similarly how something (i.e. atheism) may have been perceived in the past is also not really useful. Popular views have been disastrously wrong in the past and continue to be so. While God may well exist, the fact that the universe is the way it is, is of itself not evidence it has been designed by God to be that way. You could just as easily say I am doing what I am doing today because God designed it to be that way. If that were the case it would mean that we have no free will.<BR/><BR/>See above. I don't have the time, or inclination to debate this, as my 10+ years of debating with the likes of "Unguided" (if not with "Unguided" him/her self under a different name), proved it is a largely a waste of time.<BR/><BR/>Those who want to deny design can, since as per my Pascal quote, paraphrased: <BR/><BR/>"God has created the Universe with enough design that He can be rationally believed in; but not enough design to <I>force</I> belief in Him by the unwilling; but enough design that those who deny design are without excuse." <BR/><BR/>If Christianity is true (<A HREF="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html" REL="nofollow">which it <I>is</I></A>), those who do deny design will have no one to blame but themselves when on the Day of Judgment they will stand before the Designer and <I>try</I> to give Bertrand Russell's excuse, "not enough evidence." <BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com