Quote:
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy, universe, and solar system. Science tells us that the laws of physics that govern us are perfecly suited to support life


I have issue with this idea being evidence for ID because we don't know any other places where the laws of physics are don't apply. If course the laws of physics are suited for life, we exist because of them. Since our type of life is a derivative of them, we cannot help but to express how they work for us.

It is almost akin to the chicken/egg dilemna. Do we say this just becasue we are its evidence? Could there be other environments that are even more suitable for life that for some reason didn't produce life?

Also, when we look at our existance, we see it as orderly and assume that it required a designer. But, of course it looks orderly - becasue it is from what we're derived. It is the only reality that we know so by nature we will see it as organized.

It seems that ID is just trying to place a personality on much of what we've found through science. Perhaps people feel more comfortable making animals and objects appear like people - like we do in cartoons - to make them easier to accept.

With science, we observe and make theories that are supported by the observations. Just because the observations look more intricate/organized than we could have thought them up or designed them to be, doesn't mean that someone else did.

Could god exist without a designer? The god concept sure seems pretty intricate to me. How about something with such power that it could create a god - that must have a designer as well. The pattern seems logical, but it becomes a big mess that has no evidence from it's very root - and therefore becomes a waste of time.
_________________________
Brent
RioCar MK][a 20GB+80GB
'96 Saab 900s (Not any more)
Still looking for a good way to install in a 2010 BMW 3 series with iDrive/NAV