This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[Occhidiangela]

I don't think I recall anybody in this thread bringing up probability, Pete. You're going to have to step up; I don't think your standardized arguments will have much impact if they're not relevant to the discussion. I appologize if I missed the relevance somewhere.
That having been said, your second point is a terrible generalization, ad hominem, and logically indistinct from your first.

Your third point is very valid and deserves further discussion, though I don't feel it's a entirely cogent rebuttal to the probability argument.
[right][snapback]98656[/snapback][/right]

G Ken: It is relevant to the conversation, as I see it, in reminding us to separate the probable from the possible, and likewise the improbable from the impossible. We have libraries full of partial answers based on the observed, the possible, and the probable causes and effects of life, the universe, and everything. Well, at least 42 libraries. ;)

Intelligent Design may or may not ever succeed as an attempt to explain the observed, the probable, and the possible. Like any other approach, its assumptions influence its chances for success. The more mechanistic approach under the scientific method has done reasonably well, so far, in limited frames of reference both temporal and physical. Extrapolation from "Earth truth" into Universal truth seems to me like trying to hit a small target with a Mangonel: accuracy is subject to limitations of the tools at hand. What impresses me is how often the astrophysicists and physicists have scored a hit: how else did we get to the moon? :whistling:

Note to Jester and GK:

It occurrs to me (in answer to my own question during last reply to Jester) that The Final and Complete Answer (or nearly Final and Complete) is necessary to fulfill a future requirement. If we (we puny humans) wish to terraform successfully other planets and/or moons (playing god at the local level?) we have to better understand and be able to replicate a myriad of cause and effect relationships, or those terraforming efforts won't result in habitable planets: a critical part of the biosphere will be missing.

Of course, we first have to get there, wherever there is, which is a related endeavour bounded by the work that Hawking and others have undertaken to understand "how to get there from here," here being Earth. That will require a considerable leap in understanding and crafting technique.

The leap from horse drawn carriage to the Space Shuttle is immense, but it is a smaller leap in total understanding than will be the leap from the Space Shuttle to a Firefly class transport like Serenity, the Starship Enterprise, or the Death Star.

How intelligent would a human designed a planet be? A moon? Are we intelligent enough? We are already suspect at world stewardship, would ownership via creation make us more responsible, or less? I wonder.

Occhi