More on Intelligent Design
Yesterday I posted something on intelligent design. My intent was not to get into a large debate about it. Instead, it was merely meant as an aside to get something off my chest. If I were going to debate the intelligent design crowd, I would take them to task for badly misinterpreting and misappropriating the Bible.
I provoked a couple of responses. Metacatholic made some good points about my interpretation of the teleological argument. Then there was Island, who seems to think ad hominem attacks are the way to go. I wanted to address several things that he said, and then I will drop the topic altogether.
In response to my statement that the size of the universe makes it likely that the exact conditions for life would be found in a large number of places, Island said:
No, the observation comes from physicists… that the observed configuration is **completely unexpected** by any natural model that we have ever been able to derive… in a manner that is EXTREMELY pointed toward the production of carbon based life, over a very fine region of the observed universe.
That, of course, does not negate my point. A “very fine region of the observed universe” would still be a large number of planets capable of sustaining life like ours, not to mention other forms of life. That was precisely my point. Even if the chances are a trillion to one, the fact that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe means that there will be a large number of stars with planets similar to ours.
In response to my statement that Einstein’s theories imply that multiple universes may exist, Island said:
No, that comes originally from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein’s theory most naturally extends to predict one single finite closed spherical universe.
The “many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics” is a result of Einstein’s theories. Einstein himself did not make this leap, but many scholars have built on his work and come to that conclusion. If Island does not think those scientists are correct, that is fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that these theories are a result of Einstein’s work.
Island ends by saying:
I have an observation though… since your facts are so far off the mark, you end up projecting the image of a rabid atheist who doesn’t care about the facts any more than a young-earth creationist does, rather than an agnostic who would accept proof of whatever if they saw it.
This is a rather odd comment, since Island has not show that any, let alone all, of my facts are off the mark. And I hardly think I come across sounding like a rabid atheist, especially since I stated that I believe in God. The amount of theology discussed on this blog would also seem to argue against such an impression. But, I could be wrong. It is hard to predict how one sounds to other people.
A word of advice to Island: if you want people to take you seriously in debates, it is wise to avoid accusing people of not caring about the facts just because they happen to get some facts wrong (or if you think they have gotten some facts wrong). And personal attacks are never appropriate. While they may make you feel good, they do not add to your argument.
On June 12th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Then there was Island, who seems to think ad hominem attacks are the way to go.
Yeah, okay, so you have no clue how you insulted me first, and you won’t get it no matter what… gotcha.
In response to my statement that the size of the universe makes it likely that the exact conditions for life would be found in a large number of places, Island said
No, the point that you seem to have missed, (as you’ve accused your opponents of doing), “willfully ignoring”, is that “likely” has nothing to do with it, in the manner that you meant it, which was based soley on numerous opportunities, rather than the very good *predictable* physical reasons that the physics defines, but nice try… no, wait, no it wasn’t.
The “many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics” is a result of Einstein’s theories.
No, that’s still just as false as it was the first time that you said it.
And just an FYI, but I wasn’t debating you, I was slamming you for making false statements, that too typically follow the reactionary line of preconceived mediocrity that neodarwinians *automatically* apply, without bothering to do any real honest unbiased research into the subject.
Most of them are also rabid atheists, and you can find the same kind of pre-motivated non-arguements at “atheistsRUs, but just about any fanatical liberal will suffice…
If I wrongly mistook you forh harboring any of that, then I’m sorry…