Title Author Date

Robert Foyle Watson, Michael Oct 13, 2005

I am having an ongoing argument with an ID supporter. Out of the blue, he comes up with this quote:

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars."

By Robert Foyle? It seems genuine and I am really struggling to argue against it...?

Help?

Title Author Date

Robert Foyle Shane Oct 17, 2005

(Note: For no particular reason I am assuming your correspondent is male).

I suggest your correspondent has not given this much thought, and has failed to see the flaw of his position. The laws of physics (nuclear and otherwise), chemistry etc., will produce stars exactly in tune with those laws. After all, what other result could be expected? His position, ISTM, boils down to the fact that, for some reason that I certainly cannot fathom, he finds it noteworthy that we see stars that conform to the laws of nature. If the laws were different then the stars would be different.

His whole argument is a variation of the "explain why the earth is so perfectly suited for life"? which on the surface looks like a valid question. However, it is easily pointed out that if the earth were different then life would be different, just as life is different within the various zones on earth, I.e hot climate vs cold climate, water vs land vs air.

"Why are polar bears perfectly suited for life at the north pole, wouldn't they all die if you transplanted them to the tropics?" Well yes, but they are not at the tropics. "If earth gravity was double what it is now, our legs would not be able to support us" Well yes, but we would have legs that developed under those conditions, and they would not be as slender as those we now have. "If the earth was only half its current distance from the sun, then the UV would kill us." Well yes, but only life that could withstand that level of UV could possibly have developed.

His final statement is merely an "argument from incredulity," and unless he can come up with at least one physicist that didn't/doesn't already believe in ID that has actually been presented with the evidence and arrived at the ID conclusion, then his argument has no validity.

Shane

Title Author Date

Robert Foyle Shane Oct 17, 2005

Apologies to Michael.

A re-read of the original submission shows that i have confused the quoter Robert Foyle, with the person who queried it, Michael Watson.

It was my first post in this forum, (that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it).