What if Evolution is Compatible with Design After All?

[Rope (Rope Kojonen)]

@RonSewell

@Rope

The basic idea is that the evolution of complex organisms through the processes studied in mainstream evolutionary biology provides evidence for a Creator who ordered nature in a way to make the process possible, than by the supposition that nature just happens to have that kind of order by chance or necessity. This means that the order of biology provides evidence that supports theism over atheism.

@Rumraket

It really just seems like you’re offering a sort of fine-tuning argument.

Unless I’m missing something, I have to agree with Rum. Fine tuning ( which I regard as real, and a serious discussion concerning teleology in the universe ), posits that a limited palette of parameters is precisely set sufficient for life to emerge. Beyond these parameters, there is no “ordered nature” distinct or necessary. We do not have to rehash fine tuning here, but I am not clear as to what superposed order in nature is supposed to exist over and above, or if fine tuning is regarded as insufficient and a further force is at play, designated as order.

The distinction between my argument and the fine tuning argument is a worthy question, but it’s also one of the central points discussed in the papers by Glass and Wahlberg, as well as my response to the symposium. One underlying intuition that I am defending that the products of some complex whole (like, say, the products of an automated factory or an algorithm) can provide evidence of the designedness of that whole.