Actually, it really doesn’t matter what the argument is, or whether or not it makes sense, as long as it is against fine-tuning for life.
So guy doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about re intelligent design? Can trash it anyway with no penalty? Nice racket. Not sure how how it helps the mag.
I’ve been on this beat a long time. Never heard the term “intelligent design 2.0″ from an ID theorist. That alone would make me suspicious.
The Christian philosophy elite seemingly cannot find enough enemy command posts to surrender to.
You must not look for evidence for anything but naturalism because if it does not support naturalism, it is not evidence. There. Glad we got that sorted. 😉
His stuff’s snake oil? If so, it’s snake oil from another universe; we can’t show it’s fake because it isn’t even here.
Obvious solution: Wreck careers of anyone who brings up problem, but won’t prove servility by accepting a patently ridiculous solution.
See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
In the numbers we’ve been able to compile, our position is rather spookily at the intersection of all roads. Is this an argument for fine-tuning?
Metaxas: The notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense.
Walter Bradley, early ID theorist, explains clearly in 2010
If it was larger, we probably wouldn’t exist.
Yes, that Eric Metaxas: Further to: Anything to get rid of fine tuning: “Reason and science compels us to see what previous generations could not: that our existence is an outrageous and astonishing miracle, one so startlingly and perhaps so disturbingly miraculous that it makes any miracle like the parting of the Red Sea pale Read More…
Great! This is good for at least three hours of intelligent strumming and loafing!
Researcher: we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. It’s an extremely puzzling phenomenon.