Replies

The reason I asked your really going to hate. If rules and laws are constant and do not change, that laws of nature, etc., are intricate yet simple, and when something now unknown but later discvoered, fits in easily with the existing laws, in some cases expands our knowledge of existing laws, wouldn't a safe assumption be that the universe was created to work like a well-oiled machine?

I'd say that it's not a good assumption, at least not within the frame of science. The problem with trying to compare the universe as a whole with any man-made mechanical construct is that the universe is just too big and too complex for such a comparison. The "well-oiled" bit in your analogy actually hurts it, as we know that man-made constructs require maintenance. Thus far, there's no evidence that the universe requires any continuous maintenance to keep functioning as it does. Ultimatley, however, the problem is that there's no positive evidence for design. Inference from analogy and incredulity (which is what happens when anyone wonders "how could such regularity come from a non-intelilgent source?) is not how science works. Science formulates explanations based upon positive and direct observation, not a merely lack of observation of contrary evidence or observation of 'similar' structures that really aren't similar. It doesn't mean that intelligent design isn't necessarily factual, but until you have positive evidence for a designer (something that can be tested and hypothetically falsified), it isn't science.

Sorry if I seem like I'm rambling. I've spent too long shovelling the stuff that has kept me from going into the office to work.

There's a difference between making assumptions about the way things work and how the laws of nature got that way in the first place.

The general assumptin of science prior to quantum theroy was that the universe is a clockwork whose parts could be examined and understood. The observed quirkiness of life was assumed by many to be a special property of living things. Thae particular property of human consciousness was attributed to the soul -- something completely non-physical.

Quantum physics suggests that the quirkiness of nature is an essential property of physical objects. Where this leads requires speculation, but the clockwork physics is obsolete. Anyone who argues that mere matter cannot be conscious is simply arguing from an obsolete notion of what matter is and how deep its properties go.

Some people like to think that we (that is, existence itself) are God's thoughts. Modern physics would not conflict with this.

All this is pure speculation, but it bothers me that people are so unimaginative that they thinks science requires atheism. What science requires is willingness to conform one's imagination and speculation to what is observed.

#####It doesn't mean that intelligent design isn't necessarily factual, but until you have positive evidence for a designer (something that can be tested and hypothetically falsified), it isn't science#####

Dimensio, I might have some philosophical problems with your sentence quoted above, but in the spirit of Christmas let me applaud you for clearly displaying an open mind by writing that sentence.