The difference as I see it is that in that case you’d have keep trying many possibilities until you found some that were unlikely and then just focus on those (ie p-hacking). Whereas in this case he starts with the observations and speaks to all of them.
I’m not sure I see the difference between design and indirect design when making a conclusion of fine tuning.
Sure, I agree.
My post was intended as an example for ID proponents that should be followed when trying to make an argument for design. Of course, we already have such examples in psychology and anthropology (ETA: probably should be saying archeology)… The key difference here is that science can be used to justify non-human design.
If we use the standard fine tuning argument for our universe then the Earth is a natural outcome of the starting conditions. It is not fine tuning if a designer had to build the Earth because the universe couldn’t produce it.
Thanks very much for this feedback.
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.