RE: RE: Review of The Privileged Planet (book)

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Thu Jun 09 2005 - 08:53:47 EDT

I will place my bet with intelligent design anytime against accidentally occurring. In either case, the underlying laws that allow the universe to be "accidentally" occurring are themselves designed. As I said before, ""There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is designed. The other is as though everything is designed."



From: on behalf of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Wed 6/8/2005 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Review of The Privileged Planet (book)

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 15:37:10 -0500 (CDT) David C Campbell
<> writes:
> >The anthropic principle says that the universe we perceive must be
> of
> such a nature that will produce and accommodate beings who can
> perceive
> it. Can someone tell me, why is this not equivalent to ID?<
> The problem is in the definition of ID. Fine-tuning arguments do
> suggest the involvement of an intelligent designer in the creation
> of
> the universe, but the design is basically implemented through the
> operation of natural laws-the laws themselves are seen as designed.
> This contrasts with the search for gaps in the operation of natural
> laws, which most ID advocates especially promote with regard to
> evolution.
> Finally, the ID movement as exemplified by the Discovery Institute
> incorporates political manouevering and many specific inaccurate
> claims.
> ----------------------------------------
> Dr. David Campbell

The anthropic principle contains a simple claim: for perception to take
place there must be a perceiver. Think, in contrast, of this world before
the first australopithecine (discounting Glenn's view), much like ours
but without any creature capable of perceiving the pattern. This says
nothing about purpose. It may be accidentally and it must be
intelligently designed are rather different claims.
Received on Thu Jun 9 08:56:18 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 09 2005 - 08:56:21 EDT