Amaranth said - "If things were ID'd there would be only one way for things to develop and all would adhere strictly to that one design."
- Surely any entity intelligent enough to design would be able to design a system where fractal (I like your use of that word) variations are inherent. I can't see that it automatically follows that all things would adhere to one design. An intelligent designer wouldn't be so limited that it couldn't manage a bit of variation and uniqueness. In fact as chaos plays such a part, why wouldn't the whole system fall apart due to chaotic butterfly effects. It seems we have just enough chaos to be useful.
Not that I would argue for an intelligent designer that constantly meddles in creation because it was unable to get it right from the outset.
It's precisely the outset where the question sits. The Cosmological Constant is interesting because it points to some exceptionally fortuitous circumstances or some intelligent fine tuning. In fact this universe is shot through with profound coincidences of structure.
Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter ............... Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons:Protons .......... 1:10 to the 37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity .......... 1:10 to the 40
Expansion Rate of Universe .......... 1:10 to the 55
Mass of Universe .......... 1:10 to the 59
Cosmological Constant .......... 1:10 to the 120
?These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.?
- godandscience.org
Regarding the ratio of electrons:protons:
?One part in 10 to the 37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10 to the 37.?
- Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross
The list of fine tuning needed for the outcome we see just goes on and on.
This universe is, by the admission of many atheists, improbable.
?In an article entitled, "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" researchers from Stanford and MIT examined some of the "problems" associated with a cosmological constant. In their paper, they stated that the implications of a cosmological constant "lead to very deep paradoxes, which seem to require major revisions of our usual assumptions." They admit that "there is no universally accepted explanation of how the universe got into such a special state" and that their study, "Far from providing a solution to the problem, we will be led to a disturbing crisis." They also admit, "Some unknown agent initially started the inflation high up on its potential, and the rest is history."
-
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208013.pdf So it is at the front end of the universe ? its coming into being ? that I look to for the possibility of intelligent design. I wouldn?t even bother trying to argue from the physical laws and ongoing processes. They were set up to achieve the outcome we see. Evolution was an inevitability, and we were the inevitable outcome of evolution. Of course, others disagree.
Related quotes from non-religious scientists:
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature?s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall? be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God ? the design argument of Paley ? updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Blacknad.
