i was going to share an article with ILP for discussion.this article deals with science and religion. the tone of the article deals with scientist’s opinions and wiether science,as it is progressively revealed,is supporting or condemning I.D.* or a creator.
i’d say the article is coming from a more or less neutral view,which is the most important part of this entire thread.
because i liked the article,i was thinking of expanding on it at ILP,by ILP’s comments of coarse.
the hardest part of all this is that it is a “hot zone” sorta topic,being more scientific than religious IMO,however with threads like"get those damn theists out of the natural sciences forum",i hesitated to post it there. and i feel the overall tone should be less religious and more tangible(with the current scientific situation),so i did not put it in the religion section.
i’m not putting this article anywhere until i know how to even begin setting this thing up. I’m sure you’d agree it’s a very volatile situation…
the question had said that ID was more of a philosophy than a scientific theory,if i am remembering him at all accurately. I’d agree.
“One major question has to do with the fine-tuning of our cosmos. Why is the universe equipped with fixed physical laws and with natural constants that are precisely and ideally suited to support a planet like ours and all the life on it?”
I never did buy this line of argument… Ive never been pretentious enough to consider the cosmos as being finely tuned to ideally suit us… On the contrary, we are simply one of the many possibilities that has been actuated within this cosmos… Life did not have to come to pass. I think you would agree there are many places in the cosmos where life was not actuated. Its not as if (as far as we know) life is a dominant force in the universe. Nay, for all we know, a meteor with no purpose or design could crash into our planet tomorow and all life in the universe is gone… Could be…
And lets just imagine that the physical forces of the universe were diffirent. Lets say the nuclear forces were slightly diffirent and the consequence is a universe engulfed in a ceaseless inferno. Sure life would not be possible in that universe, but that is only life as we know it… I dont see why a diffirent kind of extremely complex system could not come to be in this alternate universe? And on a basic level, thats all life is… a complex system whose complexity happens to perpetuate it. Why is it impossible that in the span of billions of years the forces of the alternate universe would happen to combine certain particles into as complex a system as “life” that also happens to have mechanisms which aid in it’s continued existance? Maybe these things would be nothing like “life” as we know it. But maybe those other things would evolve a diffirent kind of consciousness, and maybe they would sit around and think about how amazing it is that the forces of their universe just happend to conspire to create them.
Indeed, some recent articles I’ve read postulate that most of our own galaxy is extremely hostile to Earth-type life. Due to some quirks of astronomy many scientists feel like may be extremely rare. Not to mention fragile. If we assume (G)od/s have decreed the Universe to us we may be in for an upleasant surprise.
russian tank:i’ve heard that theory before,i think tabula posted the same one.
“of all the endless chaotics in the universe it was inevitable that life(or something similar) would eventually come to be”
this is what i perceive of your theory in a sentance,if i may.
phaedrus: that post you put does not seem to be very coherent as to it’s point. you may want to expand on it…
As for science,i’m quite interested about this question:
i also wonder if it is all in the eye of the beholder or if evidence could be clearly classified as to either support ID/creation or refute it…
despite the upheaval it IS an important question… to science.