Part of this is due to the two talking heads’ ignorance, and a huge part of it is due to the misinformation campaigns waged by the evolutionists. But perhaps part of this is the ID community’s collective fault..? I see yet again, the conflation of cosmological and biological design and the assumption of not only a transcendent creator – but that the same creator created both things – the universe, and the life in it.

Bornagain hits the nail on the head:

Whereas Dr. Dembski loses me on the inference to the origin of life. Maybe it is much more subtle,,,such as in the nature of implanting information into the physical universe,,,so if you, or anyone, could please elaborate on how the origin of life is attributable directly to a transcendent Creator, I would appreciate it.

I do wish we could have a serious discussion on this issue here at UD, because it could be very productive for us. From the comments of his that I have read, I bet DaveScot would be the most willing to pose this question to the readers.

If so, don’t all these universes have similar natural laws based on the fine tuning of the various constants? As such are all fine tuned? Or are these constants supposed to have arisen because of the quantum events and eventually a chaotic universe will turn into an ordered one?

I also understand that string theory implies a large number of universes. Are these necessarily random as far as basic constants?

I always find the multiverse idea no more than an intellectual exercise driven by the embarrassment that the universe is fine tuned but if we are going to base it on something, what are the assumptions?

This maybe for another thread at another time.

- “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” 1 John 1:5 (KJV)

Doesn’t light have the ability to implant information into the physical universe?

- “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” John 1:4 (KJV)

More specifically, doesn’t light have the ability to implant life into the physical universe?

In response to comment #16 above, ID will never be able to disentangle itself from religion. In fact, they will attract each other until they are united in a Science-Religion bond. It is the inevitable non-coincidental counterbalance to the unscience-unreligion convenience, which is otherwise known as Darwinism-Atheism.

Do believers in a multiverse more often subscribe to an infinite or a finite multiverse I wonder? I would think a finite one might be more palatable.

I’m not a “believer in a multiverse” per se, but believe it can’t be ruled out (as yet, anyway).

Either way, a finite anything is more palatable than the infinite alternative since it’s very hard to grasp what infinity means, by and large.

I’m not sure, though, that an infinite number of universes requires that there be one “Q” let alone an infinite number.

Most people define an infinite multiverse as having an infinite number of universes, not that those universes are infinitely variable. It could be that all the universes in the multiverse are restricted by parameters and limits we can only guess at.

For example, there are an infinite number of integers, but that doesn’t mean that somewhere there is an integer that breaks all known mathematical laws.

Google “genetic fallacy” and study it. In science things stand and fall based on impersonal facts not on who presents them. Approximately 90% of U.S. residents self-identify themselves as believers in the Judeo-Christian God. It shouldn’t be unexpected that ID proponents are 90% or more Judeo-Christian – if ID were unrelated to religion that’s exactly what you would expect.

I agree that the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves, but that’s not the problem. The fundamentalist Christian community, by and large, have no patience for a serious and sober debate and inquiry into the merits of and evidence for ID. They believe they already know the answer, that God is obviously the designer.

And given that, so far, the ID output is mostly PR and little science, the ID message is getting lost in the overtly religious overtones of those who would support ID but muddy the waters with overt theology. That’s what happened in Dover and in South Carolina, to name but two. (It also happened with the biology textbooks in Texas last time they were reviewed, thanks to the creationist, Terri Leo).

If Christians were as serious about the science of ID as they are about educating lawyers, preachers, and public servants, then why don’t they start forking over some of the billions of dollars in the pockets of Christian businessmen and institutions with the goal of creating a fully funded ID university research program? The money needed would be a drop in the ocean for the likes of Pat Robertson, ORU, or Eric Prince. So why isn’t it happening?

And the people I am talking about (the ones making it hard for ID to gain traction) are not the 90% who claim to be religious. The majority of those Christians do not really engage in the debate at all beyond agreeing with “teach the controversy” when asked. No, it’s the more militant 20% or so, those who are the hard-core creationists, those who are politically driven to support their Bible-believing beliefs.

The truth is that they’re more dysfunctional than everyone else and have to live in a sheltered little world where they all think alike, act alike, and pat each other on the back constantly about how very smart they are.

It’s ironic you should say that, because it can be equally applied to those creationists within the fundamentalist Christian community. I have seen plenty of sermons and speeches that mock the beliefs of old-Earthers in order get a good laugh and tell their congregation or audience how smart they are not to believe that stuff. These people are every bit as sheltered and coddled within their church communities as the scientists are in academia.

I like to think the physically impossible imposes at least some limits on a multiverse,(like maybe Q or the origin of life without intelligent help are impossibilities for some reason.) or does quantum mechanics or probability theory get by that? I guess I might be getting a little off topic here…

In an infinite multiverse “Q” is not just possible he’s mandatory. An infinite number of Q’s in an infinite number of universes in fact. An infinite multiverse is just about the silliest non-explanation I’ve ever heard. The Boltzmann Brain Paradox is amongst the most humorous IMO.

The Boltzmann brains paradox is that it is more likely that a brain randomly forms out of the chaos with false memories of its life than that the universe around us would have billions of self-aware brains.

Talk about a science stopper!

Google “genetic fallacy” and study it. In science things stand and fall based on impersonal facts not on who presents them. Approximately 90% of U.S. residents self-identify themselves as believers in the Judeo-Christian God. It shouldn’t be unexpected that ID proponents are 90% or more Judeo-Christian – if ID were unrelated to religion that’s exactly what you would expect.

What’s out of line is that 60% of academic scientists self-identify as non-religious. They like to think they are irreligious because they’re smarter than everyone else. The truth is that they’re more dysfunctional than everyone else and have to live in a sheltered little world where they all think alike, act alike, and pat each other on the back constantly about how very smart they are.

Also you mentioned earlier a list of candidates for the role of designer. I keep waiting for someone to say it could be “Q” from star trek, but as I haven’t come across it I thought I would throw that in there. (Although I don’t know the show well enough to know if Q originated in a dimension caused by the big bang or not, if so then still a Q-esk being is possible in a multiverse I guess.)