crocodile deathroll

Perhaps some philosopher back in the age of antiquity may inhale a few noxious gasses and thought "why does the Earth have such a perfect mix of gasses in its atmosphere when virtually all random mix of gasses will kill us?"

This must be evidence the world (the universe as he knew it) is fine tuned for our existence.

It never crossed his mind that there were other planets with atmospheres with gasses just as every bit nasty or those gasses he inhaled. So that knocks his purposeful design theory on the head.

Many people think the same about fine tuning of the universe as that philosopher thought about the fine tuning of the Earth, and use the fine tuning of the laws of physics as evidence of a divinity.
So the laws of physics in the universe we observe may be OK for us but our there in hyperspace there are other universes where the laws of physics are very different to this one. Laws of physics so alien that any life at all not even bacterium could not even get started. So we are just an accidentally successful outcome of a "fine tuning" argument and not the reason for it.

Croc

MrDarwin

Can you point out some things that are well designed, and then tell us how you would be able to tell if something had been poorly designed?

KC

Birds with wings and hollow bones, but who cannot fly.

Cheers,

KC

Oolon Colluphid

Just a quibble perhaps, but I think 'poor design' is a perfectly valid way to put it. The reason is that creationists, unlike the rest of us, are genuinely thinking in terms of designs, ie that someone (god) actually planned the layout, materials and construction of living things a priori. There is (they allege) intelligent intent in how things are. Therefore, given that mere humans can see problems with these 'designs', the designer is either not as advertised, or there wasn't one.

I agree that 'poor design' is a poor way to put it from the evolutionary perspective... but that's not the perspective creationists use!

This is just the standard scientific thingy of testing a hypothesis: take it at face value, and see if the real world fits what it predicts. And, of course, the creationist one doesn't. Not only do we have a better theory to explain this stuff anyway (evolution): even if we didn't, we can reject the designer hypothesis as not fitting the data.

Cheers, DT

MrDarwin

Perfect or imperfect, you be the judge:

The venom of the <a href="http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~hollidac/cicadakillerhome.html" target="_blank">cicada killer wasp</a> is a toxin designed to immobilize cicadas, which it does admirably. This paralysis is a function of both the chemical composition of the venom, and the dose in which it is delivered. If delivered in a larger quantity it would kill the cicada, which would then decompose, leaving nothing for the cicada killer larva to feed on; if delivered in a lesser quantity, it would allow the cicada to move around or even escape, dislodging the larva of the cicada killer wasp, which would again starve and die. The dosage delivered is just right to keep the cicada (which does make feeble, if futile, attempts to escape) both alive but paralyzed (and remarkably, alive for longer than the adult cicada would live otherwise), providing fresh food to the cicada killer larva, which slowly eats the cicada alive.

In an interesting epilogue, cicada killer wasps provide their male larvae with a single cicada to eat, but their female larvae (which grow bigger) with two cicadas.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

pz

Perfect! Perfectly EVIL, that is.

MrDarwin

So... nobody wants to address this?

Starboy

Frisch, perfect for what?

DigitalDruid

Frisch,
Even though some christians are now fighting the theory of evolution tooth and nail, thanks to discoveries by astronomers, the Church abandoned the view that the universe is flawless long ago!

As some forum-members have pointed out it is legitimate to ask what "perfection" means.
But, let’s be nice and accept church’s own centuries-old definition of "perfection of the universe": that the heavens (which included all celestial objects) is free from any irregularities and is unchanging. Let’s now examine how it helds up.

Galielo pointed his telescope to the sky in 1601 and discovered much about the "heavenly bodies" which did not seem consistent with Church teachings. Particularly, he found that the Moon's surface was "uneven, rough, and full of cavities and prominences, being not unlike the face of the Earth". These discoveries showed that the heavenly bodies previously regarded by the Church as perfect, smooth, and incorruptible, did indeed have irregularities

Next, Galileo's discovery that the Sun seemed to have "blemishes", what we call today sunspots, deeply concerned the Church. The presence on the Sun of such blemishes, their changes in size and shape, as well as their formation and subsequent disappearance, all were very distasteful concepts to those who believed in a perfect, unchanging universe. In an attempt to rescue the "perfectibility of the heavens," which the Catholic Church teachings required, Galileo's rival Jesuit priest Christoph Scheiner claimed that sunspots were simply undiscovered planets of the Sun occasionally crossing in front of its disk. But Galileo pointed out that the suspots are irregularly shaped and move at varying speed across the sun. That’s not how "perfect" planets are supposed to look or behave anyway. His arguments was so convincing that even Scheiner eventually acknowledged the spots.

Back in 1572, astronomer Tycho Brahe observed a brilliant new star (a supernova) appear in the sky. Artistotle, and subsequently the Catholic Church, had argued that the starry sphere was perfect and unchanging, so how could a "new star" appear? The supernova discovery started Tycho and his followers thinking and questioning about the Church-proscribed models of the cosmos.

Galileo was persecuted by the Church and some 300 years after his death the Pope has tendered an apology. Now-a-days you won't hear anyone from the Church talking about the heavens as flawless and unchanging. Now the theme is flawlessness of man as divine creation! So unfortunately intolerance for newer scientific discoveries that does not toe the scriptural line continues as before.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalDruid ]</p>