Replies

Again, thank you both so much for your excellent essay posts! And thank you, dear betty boop, for the abstract to that fascinating article!

My response below corresponds to 2ndreconmarine’s comments:

1. I agree that the article was much better in the beginning than in the end. But it doesn’t surprise me that he accepts the universe as old – that is the majority view. Those who believe the universe is young fall into two camps: (a) the Young Earth Creationism theory which asserts the physical realm was created some 6,000 years ago and the physical evidence must support that, and (b) the Gosse Omphalos hypothesis which asserts that God created an old-looking universe some 6,000 years ago.

My personal view is akin to Gerald Schroeder’s (a Jewish physicist): that we must consider both inflationary theory and relativity to understand the age of this universe. Six days from the inception space/time coordinates are equal to some 15 billion years from our space/time coordinates.

2. I disagree with your definition of “Intelligent Design” though I agree we must realize the difference between the “Design of the Universe” and “Intelligent Design”. You said:

* "Intelligent Design" is the very specific notion that the Creator, having designed the Universe 15 billion years ago, got it wrong and had to tinker with it multiple times subsequently to get life to work.

The intelligent design hypothesis does not speak to Liebnitz’ philosophy but rather simply states:

that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection

4. There are certainly many articles on Habitable Zones and NASA has held at least one workshop on the subject. IMHO, there is a tendency to anthropomorphize the first question which he strangely is criticizing and nevertheless doing himself. IOW, the first question ought to be “what is life?” before asking “what is habitable?”.

Finally, and most importantly, it is dangerous philosophy to base your Christian faith on a particular, poorly supported "science".

I would expand and extend: faith ought never be contingent on science – whether good science or bad science.

Only a “doubting Thomas” demands physical proof. But doubting Thomas was an apostle, too.

Moreover, the Father has revealed Himself in several ways: through Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, through Scriptures and through Creation (both spiritual and physical). And we will be held accountable if we fail to notice His revelations.

Romans 1 and Psalms 19 make it clear that we should notice His revelation in nature. And in that regard, I stand in awe over (a) the fact of a beginning of space/time and physical causality, (b) the unreasonable effectiveness of math, (c) the presence of information (successful communication) in the universe and in life, (d) autonomy in life, (e) willfulness, especially the will to live.