Mike Marlow wrote:

...



Intelligent Design is hard to nail down because it is so loosely defined.
There are almost as many degrees of it as there are people who believe in
it.

Perhaps more as it is by no means clear that all of its proponents
believe in it. (Something it has in common with evolutionary biology).
Certainly a large number of proponents of one or the other under-
stand neither.

There is however a very large contingent of folks who believe in
intelligent design that also believe in evolution to a point. The
differentiator tends to be whether things as we know them came into being
out of chaos or whether they came into being by creation. ...
For many, a big bang type of theory and an expanding universe can
easily sit side by side with a creation notion.

If you are going to change the subject, could you at least change it
to woodworking?

Slow mutation and Natural selection is mute on the subject of the
creation of the Universe. It worked equally well in a steady-state
universe, an expanding one, a collapsing one or any of the hybrid
cosmologies. A criticism of evolutionary biology founded on an
'order cannot come of chaos' argument betrays a ignorance that is
truly multidisciplinary.

...

The very rules of science which make it
predictable and measurable imply an order within the universe that is
contrary to the absolute belief in evolution - or better said, to a denial
of intelligent design. As has been proposed many times by minds far greater
than mine, order does not come out of chaos, rather, order tends to decay
into chaos.

You really do not understand thermodynamics.

As yet, I've never heard anyone put forward a theory for how
order in the universe evolved from chaos and somehow found a way to
stabilize at the level of order that we now base all of our science on.

I have. His name is Isaac Newton. I have not read the work but
it is my understanding that he addressed the problem of the expansion
of a uniform gas and found that discontinuities were inevitable.

One could attribute all events in the universe, including my typos
as being determined by the initial conditions at the moment of the
(or 'a' for the general case) big bang, arguing for a completely
detrministic universe. A dogma stating that those initial conditions
were chosen by God would then produce the most rigid concept of
predestination any religious philosphy.

So what? The universe one observes, will be the same whether
credits God with its creation or not.

--

FF