zgoldsmith23 said:
I certainly understand what you're saying and can appreciate it, but I do somewhat disagree with pieces. For one, I'm not 100% sure which experiment that you're referring to, but showing proteins are capable of being synthesized in such a manner is big. It's not as much anymore, but at one time, it was HUGE! Now we can talk about the generalizations - and that is what they will be, not definite for all of a group. Atheists tend to get their science from scientific journalism but, that sure beats it out of a 2000 year old book and out of a place like "Answers in Genesis" or Dembski, Behe, or Comfort.
I think we're close to being on the same page with regard to the above. I became more convinced that materialism (note that I do not equate this with atheism, though I do think they make good bedfellows) is a very weak position after I stopped reading science journalism as a means of attaining reliable information, and started wading through the actual science. It seems to me that science journalists vastly overblow the implications of neuroscience--though they are partly encouraged by a small but vocal group of brain scientists who are great at neuroscience but who are, importantly, lousy at philosophy. I can expand and provide examples on request. I decided to go the philosophy route because it seemed to me that's still where the real issues are to be found.
zgoldsmith23 said:
To me, in short, the answer is: No. I also wouldn't say that it's philosophical as the claim is made about reality - where science dwells.
I'm not sure the distinct is quite that clear. Philosophy that had nothing to do with reality (depending on what we mean by that word) probably won't get much traction. On the other hand, it's not clear to me that science is capable of deciding some fundamental questions about the nature of reality. Do we live in Russell's universe, or Berkeley's? Both have the same observational consequences, but they're definitely not the same universe. We have to decide which account to prefer on philosophical grounds.
The reason I think philosophy creeps into the picture when we admit that there's no definitive test to tell whether a thing is designed or not is because that implies no observation we could make will decide the question for us. Atheists, for example, will then try to bring in principles of parsimony (Occam's razor, for instance)...but the claim that a principle of parsimony should be employed is a philosophical one. It may be
good philosophy (or it may not be), but it's still philosophy.
zgoldsmith23 said:
What trait(s), action(s), or feature(s) necessarily require design? This article even admitted that the odds, while statistically improbable (to say the least) are, still, possible. And that's all it takes - one spark, one light, one "boom" and the process begins without begging the question of "god."
Well, this is just to rework the same question. We know there are things that are designed. It's a fact, for example, that the computer I'm typing on is designed. But if it's not impossible for it to have just come together via unguided processes, then...
Here's the point: take this computer as an analogy for the universe, just conditionally speaking (i.e. for the sake of deciding a principle, not as a positive fact). As it happens, it's a fact that the computer is designed. But if we didn't know that, and we had to just figure it out, it would always be possible for someone to claim that the computer is not designed. The problem is that this is incorrect. If we were in that situation, we'd be getting it wrong.
Now: I do not claim that the universe is necessarily designed. I agree there's no test we can make that will tell us. But that's the whole point. In such a situation, if we stick to only what tests may tell us, we run a risk of getting it wrong, and having no idea whether we've gotten it wrong or not.
This is why talk of probabilities is so important. Again, if we're trying to figure out the computer, we might be able to calculate the probabilities it could come together without design. If the probability is very, very low, we might reasonably conclude it is designed.
The multiverse theory weighs on the actual probabilities. If the universe is a one-off, then it looks very probable that it was designed. Not certain, but I think it's a good bet. On the other hand, if the universe we have is the result of a nearly infinite sequence of previous trials, then probability becomes much less of a factor. It's extemely improbable that I'll win the lottery, but if I buy enough tickets, likely as not I'll win eventually.
The point the article seems to want to make is that the probability argument came up again from recent observations, and that the multiverse response is merely ad hoc. I'm not convinced it is. There may be other reasons to think there are multiverses, but I have to admit I'm not well-versed in the subject. Of course, if it is ad hoc, then that seems like bad philosophy to me.