I don’t think we will ever be able to prove nor disprove intelligent design. We simply do know how much we don’t know and it is therefore impossible to rule out or confirm that. It also creates the paradox of if a creator existed, they’d have to exist in something which then begs the question whether they have a creator, which could easily enter infinite recursion.
As for the number of parameters that make habitable universes possible, we think to have found 26 but who knows how many actually exist. He pointed out the electric dipole moment of a neutron having no bearing on habitability, but how can he know that to be true 100%? It’s like how we believed our DNA was 98% junk only to find out it does have a function.
I like the thought experiments but they stay just that, thought experiments - at least until they can be tested.
I agree with your point on infinite recursion, and that is precisely why intelligent design is not a useful framework. It is a thought terminating cliche that provides the illusion of an answer without the substance of one.
Saying a designer did it, doesn’t explaining anything, and just pushes the explanation back to a theoretically complex designer who in turn needs its own explanation. This halts all scientific inquiry. If we treat junk DNA or physical constants as mysterious designs, we stop looking for their mechanical functions. It is far better to sit with the discomfort of the unknown than to embrace a pseudo answer that shuts down investigation.
I don’t think we will ever be able to prove nor disprove intelligent design. We simply do know how much we don’t know and it is therefore impossible to rule out or confirm that. It also creates the paradox of if a creator existed, they’d have to exist in something which then begs the question whether they have a creator, which could easily enter infinite recursion.
As for the number of parameters that make habitable universes possible, we think to have found 26 but who knows how many actually exist. He pointed out the electric dipole moment of a neutron having no bearing on habitability, but how can he know that to be true 100%? It’s like how we believed our DNA was 98% junk only to find out it does have a function.
I like the thought experiments but they stay just that, thought experiments - at least until they can be tested.
I agree with your point on infinite recursion, and that is precisely why intelligent design is not a useful framework. It is a thought terminating cliche that provides the illusion of an answer without the substance of one.
Saying a designer did it, doesn’t explaining anything, and just pushes the explanation back to a theoretically complex designer who in turn needs its own explanation. This halts all scientific inquiry. If we treat junk DNA or physical constants as mysterious designs, we stop looking for their mechanical functions. It is far better to sit with the discomfort of the unknown than to embrace a pseudo answer that shuts down investigation.