Posted: Jul 26, 2010 5:17 pm
by Darwinsbulldog
Shrunk wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:This universe is just one where life is feasible in some tiny spots here and there. A well designed universe that was designed for life would surely be more efficient. If I leave the surface of this earth for only 30 kilometers, I am sucking pretty much on vacuum. Pretty piss-poor design if you ask me. Most of THIS sun's energy is "wasted" on empty space, or dead worlds. Good design?? The universe is not eternal-good design????


amused can certainly speak for himself, but I think he's making a more subtle and reasonable point than this. He seems to be suggesting that there may be natural forces or factors that favour a dynamic, changing universe settling into a state that allows complex entities, such as living organisms, to arise. Much in the same way that evolution, though proceeding without a defined goal or impetus from a "designer", nonetheless is predisposed to give rise to certain biological structures that give the appearance of design.

If that's not his point, I'll gladly take credit for it. :mrgreen: I don't think it's a position I would advocate myself, but it's one that I think is worthy of serious consideration, without just being dismisssed as covert theism.


Well, we all know of the "design" capabilities of NS, which are formidable sometimes and clunky at other times. As far as I can see this is a either a "weak" anthropic argument which nearly everyone accepts or a wedge type strategy to bring some sort of crypto-creationism argument in through the back door. Like Francisco Ayala and Kenneth B. Miller, both good scientists and avid creationism fighters, and yet they both believe in a god designer who reckon that evolution is just a automatic tool for building life. This can be seen most clearly when you raise the question of a soul with them, then they go into god-mode [with more subtlety than the creotards], but still ponder a possibility of god at the helm somewhere. They will never admit outright that god exists when doing science, but they make no secret of their faith. That means that they are not full-time methodological naturalists, but only temporary ones when they are actually doing science.

In other words, they are apologists for the NOMA, and as such at some level find the evidence for god compelling enough to believe in him. This is a danger to science because it puts religion on an "equal footing" with science in terms of explaining nature, and that is unscientific.