Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
I'm not sure that we're talking apples and apples here. I am probably completely missing your point, but the cosmological constant usually comes up in discussions about the end, i.e. will the universe forever expand, collapse, etc, whereas the age of the universe has been calculated by completely different techniques.
Yes, I agree the CC does not prove anything. I also agree that they still don't know what's out there yet completely. They're still getting 2+2=5 on a few of their equations and so you read different theories as to the solution. But, again, the age of the earth at slightly over 4 billion is a solid number and the age of the universe is pretty solid as well because it really doesn't depend on how much dark matter/energy that there is.
But consider what you're asking Hansel to accept carte blanche: if the Big Bang, ensuing universe, ensuing solar systemand ensuing advanced life forms in just a few billion years was an accident, what a bizarre accident!
Seriously, it would be like pouring the periodic table in a liquid plasma out the window of an F-16 and watch it congeal before your eyes into a Cray. I'm just telling you how that's how I look at the atheistic argument and maybe that's what Hansel is getting at: I don't know exactly where he's coming from.
You have self-organization building incredibly complex systems in just a few billion years. So - and I'm just being honest here - I really find it hard to believe that somone could argue that it is foolish to think that this is anything other than just an "accident", esp. when you consider all the supernatural activity on planet earth.
Of course, I understand that the athiestic argument is that it all occurred (debatably imo) by natural means. There is no need of a God in any of it they would say. But, again, it's so incredibly mysterious: how can you just pour something out of a window and watch it slowly self-organize into such awesome complexity by pure accident and chance? It's a good question I think.
You at least have to admit it's bizarre!
Go to a Vegas casino, walk into the blackjack pit. Observe that the games are played with 1 to 6 decks. Every time one of those decks or shoes is shuffled, the order that results is so impossible that the probability that any of those orders will reoccur during some future shuffle is practically nil.
And, yet, this impossible act is occurring 24 X 7, 365 days a year, at every open blackjack table in every casino on Earth where blackjack, or any other card game is played.
Now, if you were to count all of those card games, you'ld probably come up with a few hundred thousand taking place at any one time, on the planet. But, given a world with sloshing seas, rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, puddles, etc., and knowing that the chemicals that are constituents of those water vessels actually have a natural affinity for attraction and binding, and further knowing that there are probably trillions of interactions going on every moment of every day on this planet and on other planets throughout the universe, is it really that bizarre that "something" weird might happen just one time.
Because it really does have to happen just once in the history of the universe in order to get things started. The new replicating molecule wouldn't have any competition for resources, because it would be utterly alone. It also wouldn't be doing a hell of a lot more than replicating with errors, and it's just possible that its error rate was hugely greater than that of modern organisms, so evolution would have been a lot faster.
And, of course, the organism and its successors didn't have any skeletal system to fossilize for eons, so whatever was going on would not be easily discovered in the future.
As for the rest of the story, well, science tells it pretty well. It's not a perfect novel and it's got some pretty big holes, but it fits the empirical data better than does an intelligent entity who slips in and out of our universe undetected.
But, even if the latter story is true, there is simply no means of distinguishing an actual "Act of God" (i.e., a true directed act of divine intervention) from a legal "Act of God" (i.e., an occurrence which is attributable to chance and for which no individual may be held liable -- and, the reason why there are insurance companies).
So, to what end does the ID advocate work? Instead of looking for actual evidence of third-party intervention in the processes of life, the IDer operates on the following circular syllogism:
1. Because the designer exists.
2. Things look designed to one of the designer's creations.
3. Therefore the designer exists.
While evolution operates on this syllogism:
1. Because the universe is composed of attractive and repulsive forces.
2. Turbulence is created causing various organisms to be created and destroyed.
3. Therefore evolution of an imperfect replicator is possible.
Is there evidence to support the ID construct? Sure, there loads of evidence to support #2 -- but nothing to support #1. While for the evolutionary construct, there is evidence for both #1 and #2.
So, objectively, if I have to choose which story is more plausible, I chose the latter, because there is evidence to support both premises.
There is no getting around the fact that in order to make ID a "science," the IDer must produce proof of the designer's existence independent of its designs. Until that happens, ID is not a science.
It could be true, but it's unprovable.
