VisualDistortion said:
If life is the product of a special creation than god is a thrifty son of a bitch. In the case of a special creation there is no reason for life to share so many features and genetic material. If there is a designer, he either designed everything to look like evolution had taken place or he seeded our planet with the building blocks of life and let evolution take place. I'm not much into physics and I don't know much about the big bang theory, but it is clear to me that life on this planet was not the product of a special creation. It was the product of evolution. I personally choose to extrapolate that and feel that since our biological diversity is not the product of a designer, than our universe isn't either.
I still don't see how this is a case against a creator, an anthropocentric creator sure, but is that what we are really talking about here?. I would argue until my face turned blue against the idea of a special creation...as someone said, "If we are the only life in the universe, it sure is a whole lot of wasted space."
If the universe was created with the form and intention for the evolution of life, then you would have a universe desiged for life. The creator need do nothing but start the process of the big bang, and let it go from there. Evolution is design, a brillant one at that. I agree that it works against the idea of an involved creator, but that in turn is just narrowing the definition of a creator to a very limited range of possibilites.
It seems perfectly plausible to me that a universe that appears not to need a creator, would actually have one. They are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps we are not meant to have access to the deeper mysteries of our existence at this point in our evolution?
