It is true that both conditions support the argument for Intelligent Design.
And you don't see even a teeny-weeny bit of irony there?
To argue against Intelligent Design, you'd have to prove abiogenesis and find an acceptable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, i.e. more than simply the "strong anthropic principle."
I don't need to do either. The ID advocates need to do the proving. However, in fairness, I should point out that there may be something to the anthropic principle. It's interesting and it definitely needs to be studied.
As I have mentioned before, I believe there is an objective "for" test, i.e. Algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design.
I donno about that. Whatever principles were in play at the start of the universe could be described, after we figure them out. The search for a Grand Unified Theory is a search for something like what you are looking for. But merely because the initial relationships could be described, and put into equation form, wouldn't prove that someOne (or someThing) wrote that equation ab initio.
Of course, other IDers could argue that if such an algorithm was never found, it would not disprove intelligent design. But that's pretty much your point, isn't it?
That wasn't my point, but I agree with it.
If you are interested in progress on the anthropic principle you might want to check out this website.
But merely because the initial relationships could be described, and put into equation form, wouldn't prove that someOne (or someThing) wrote that equation ab initio.
In other words, are you saying that it requires no intelligence to formulate an algorithm, i.e. process, conditionals, symbolization and recursives --- that such an algorithm can arise from null?