Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Science does not look into the why of things. It just says how things happen. So if I should, say, dribble badly when I pee (as I did this morning), science can explain how this happened but not say if, for instance, God decided to punish me with some bad dribbling or if instead I was just distracted. Even if science can tell me that I was distracted, maybe God wanted me to be distracted so that I'd dribble...

Science is about how the physical world behaves. It has nothing to say about why, ultimately, the world is behaving one way or another. Science cannot tell you, for instance, why the world exists rather than not. So if you see a scientist say: "God does not exist", he is not behaving as a scientist when he says that, but as a philosopher. No laboratory experiment will ever prove that God does not exist.

However, we can say that evolution does not seem to follow the logical route which we, if we had to design it, would have tried to follow. It certainly does not look like a planned process. But of course, God could be making sure that evolution looks stochastic, even though it was entirely designed, just to confuse us... That guy God can be tricky.

FBM wrote:

You're right; there's no way I could know because you're apparently either too cowardly or ashamed to tell us what your hypothesis is.

     My hypothesis is that you don't have any justified assumptions to claim that the Big Bang has created whatsoever, and that you don't even have the vaguest idea of how should the assumptions of a 'standard theory' look like ... not to say that you claim that you believe in the General Relativity Theory ... without even having read it (we are not talking about interpretations yet). When I presented the formal model of the General Relativity Theory to FM (without saying to him what it actually is) he said that it is absolute bullshit. I am not going to argue that it is not bulshit, but are you curious to know what I think about all that: both of you with FM believe blindly exclusively into the status quo only, you believe that the status quo is the best way to practice easy-makering and to make the safest scientific career and promotions ... without any reasonable justification, BTW.

All you have to do is present something better than what you're nitpicking.

Which one of the two is more plausible: for an ILF to have been created by some other ILF/meta-intelligence, or to have appeared stochastically, in the event when it is alone within some space, without any other ILFs (for now)?

Quid pro quo. We all know that the standard model is incomplete, but it's a helluva lot more robust than anything you've brought to the table.

precisely. "The electric unverse" your ass.

There's the "seeing is believing" aspect, too. As an example, there's the Creation Museum in Kentucky. "It's gotta be true, i seen it at the museum."

"No gods and works of gods can be scientifically evidenced"

1 December 2014
HIV evolving 'into milder form'
By James Gallagher
Health editor, BBC News website

HIV is evolving to become less deadly and less infectious, according to a major scientific study.

The team at the University of Oxford shows the virus is being "watered down" as it adapts to our immune systems.

It said it was taking longer for HIV infection to cause Aids and that the changes in the virus may help efforts to contain the pandemic.

Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve.

More than 35 million people around the world are infected with HIV and inside their bodies a devastating battle takes place between the immune system and the virus.

HIV is a master of disguise. It rapidly and effortlessly mutates to evade and adapt to the immune system.
...
"We are observing evolution happening in front of us and it is surprising how quickly the process is happening."
...

It's you that isn't understanding Frank. Science can only explain the natural world. They can't test the supernatural. They don't dismiss it other than to say, it is outside their realm. Science doesn't say God doesn't exist other than to say he doesn't exist in the known natural world.

There's been mass extinction events, which are perfectly fine in a 'casino universe' but if this was designed, it looks like the designers were unhappy with their sketches and erased them all to start from almost scratch. 4 times... Also there seem to be a trial and error approach to the evolution of some organs or features , with certain directions taken then abandoned. So if a guy did design all that, he was learning (very slowly) how he could make it work by trial and error... And why keep the same basic structure all the time? Why not create some mammals or birds with a totally different skeleton, eg with 6 real fingers instead of always 5 fingers or less (for those mammals who 'lost' some fingers eg horses, like we humans lost our tail)?

Why make sea mammals with a terrestrial lung that needs to breathe on the surface, when you could use fish respiratory systems adapted to breathing in water? Etc.