[Fester Chugabrew]

"If the electron carried more charge than the proton, all atoms would be negatively charged. In that case - since identical charges repel - all the atoms composing all the objects in the universe would fly apart in a catastrophic explosion. On the other hand, if the proton carried more charge than the electron, all atoms would be positively charged - with the same disastrous consequences."

This little quote comes from Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D.

Does it concur with the facts?

Do you believe the attributes of these atomic particles to be coincidental even though this is the only known configuration by which life as we know it can be sustained?

What is the mathemetical probability of so much substance arising with this kind of consistency?

If the probabilities are slim, would that necessarily favor a theory that "design" objectively permeates the universe?

If so, does it necessarily follow that the probabilites are false and must be kept out of the classroom because it might incite religious backlash?

If not, what kind of mechanism might an evolutionist propose as a cause for this kind of consistency throughout the known world?

Do you believe it is preposterous to infer that some kind of design may be at the bottom of this?

[Aric2000]

Do you believe the attributes of these atomic particles to be coincidental even though this is the only known configuration by which life as we know it can be sustained?

or how about that life evolved to fit in with the laws of the universe? no other life could have, so therefore it is the only life that survived.

Why is it always the universe is too complex? The universe was designed for us to survive? Why isn't it, how did we evolve as we did to fit into the physical laws of this universe?

You are going at it from a creationist viewpoint, humans are the center of the universe, maybe it is the universe that is the center of everything and we just got REAL, REAL, lucky that evolution worked and we did evolve the way we did. We are but atoms within the sand on a very large beach?

Science and religion do not mix, when you can prove that there is a creator, then we will discuss it being part of science.

The whole idea that the universe is designed CANNOT be proven, why? because you cannot prove that there is a designer. When you can look at DNA and give me a manufacturer and serial number, or maybe find god in person and have him say, "yep, I created this..." then we can talk about it being fact. In the meantime, it is religion, not science and has NO place in our public schools.

You want to teach your children creationism/ID then go ahead, but don't expect our public schools to teach religious dogma for you, that is YOUR job, not thiers.

[general_re]

What is the mathemetical probability of so much substance arising with this kind of consistency?

A posteriori attempts to assign odds to events do not produce meaningful results, although I can say that if the universe were not consistent in this manner, you wouldn't be around to remark at its consistency.

[donh]

If the probabilities are slim, would that necessarily favor a theory that "design" objectively permeates the universe?

Only if you are absolutely sure you know what the state-space and the selection criteria were, so that you could produce honest statistics. Otherwise, this is a notion brought to you by the fine offices of the American Guessing Association. This is a particularly silly example, in that the "design" of atoms seems likely to be predicated on the very fact here viewed as an astonishing coincidence.

You contention has been aptly dubbed by PH the principle of retroactive astonishment. It appears (galavanting particle physicists aside) that the universe, out of all the myrid futures that could unfold, can only unfold one. Whichever one it unfolds will seem astonishingly unlikely, but that is because all the futures that didn't happen don't get to vote.

If not, what kind of mechanism might an evolutionist propose as a cause for this kind of consistency throughout the known world?

Conservation laws arising from symmetries born of the balancing act of particles and forces in the beginning? Electrons and positrons arise from nothing, and return to nothing when they collide. Net charge is conserved--the books stay balanced. Any accountant could explain how apparently organized magic can arise from adhering like iron to a few simple accounting equations.

Do you believe it is preposterous to infer that some kind of design may be at the bottom of this?

No, not in the least, I so choose, in fact. This, however, has no bearing on science, which wants to explain things about the material world using material evidence. To the extent that ID wants to point to an immaterial cause, what ID, in my opinion, wants to ask, is for science to try to have some compentence outside this venue. It is too much to ask.

It may have an immaterial cause, but who can know? Who can know which immaterial cause? If you are talking about things immaterial, than evidence is irrelevant, and evidence is the only crank science knows how to turn.