creation vs. evolutionism(a religion)

[laura352]

two verses in the bible contradict the theory of evolution. Genesis 1:27 which says that God made man in his image and a verse in Luke saying that Jesus Christ is the same to day, yesterday, and for ever. if God doesn't change, how can man if man is made in God's image?

 

[Drew]

two verses in the bible contradict the theory of evolution. Genesis 1:27 which says that God made man in his image and a verse in Luke saying that Jesus Christ is the same to day, yesterday, and for ever. if God doesn't change, how can man if man is made in God's image?

Hello. My intent is not be "difficult", but I do wish to challenge what you write here. I do not see why a statement that God created man in His image is a challenge to evolution. God could have used the mechanism of evolution to create man with a result being that man indeed bears the image of God. I would agree that "unguided" evolution is probably incompatible with Gen 1:27, and if that is what you mean, I agree with you.

I am going to invite those who believe that evolution is essentially a process that is not "guided" by an intelligent agent to make a case as to why the notion of "divinely-guided" evolution is inconsistent with the observational evidence. I shall wager a flagon of fine October ale that no successful argument against guided evolution will be tabled. But, we shall see.

Second, application of your "if God doesn't change, how can man if man is made in God's image" argument seems to lead to contradiction because we know man indeed does change - individual people obviously change over time and man's "culture", or corporate character, also changes.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The only refutation necessary is that your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Cite once reference to a need for a ID'er to guide evolution. Cite one instance of a irreducible complex, or any event that requires more than natural processes.

True, you can always say that there is one, we just haven't found it, but that would put your claim into an unfalsifiable nature due to the inability to have knowledge of every event of the past or future.

Unfalsifiable claims is not extraordinary evidence.

 

[Drew]

The only refutation necessary is that your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

Please read what I write carefully. I never said that there was even a smidgen of evidence for my belief in "guided" evolution. I merely claimed that it will be difficult for people to argue that guided evolution is inconsistent with the observational evidence.

Unfalsifiable claims is not extraordinary evidence.

As stated above, I did not claim to have any evidence for my position on this.

I will indeed claim that putting forward the idea of an "intelligent designer" is a perfectly legitimate scientific hypothesis. Remember what a scientific model is - it is a conceptual model that allows us to successfully predict the outcome of an experiment. And it has to be falsifiable. It does not have to be "impersonal" - in the way that wave and particle are indeed "impersonal" and indeed work very well as scientific models.

Suppose there was a universe in which every man who cheated on his wife was immediately consumed in flame. That is, of course, not how our universe seems to run, but such a universe is indeed a logically possible one.

In such a universe, the best "predicitive model" for the observation "human male consumed in flame" might, repeat might, be that there exists a powerful being that punishes such behaviour by causing these men to be consumed by flame. And as soon as some man cheats on his wife and is not consumed - the theory is falsified.

I think that positing the existence of an intelligent being with certain specific characteristics is an entirely legitimate scientific hypothesis. It can be tested. It can be falsified.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Drew:
Please read what I write carefully. I never said that there was even a smidgen of evidence for my belief in "guided" evolution. I merely claimed that it will be difficult for people to argue that guided evolution is inconsistent with the observational evidence.

From a scientific standpoint, you cannot falsify that claim. You are talking supernatural guidance. Science can only deal with the natural world.

Now, I can say that there is not one thing in evolution that needs a designer, therefore making the probability of an ID’er from a naturalistic standpoint quite low. It just cannot be made to be 0 because of the supernatural claim.

I will indeed claim that putting forward the idea of an "intelligent designer" is a perfectly legitimate scientific hypothesis. Remember what a scientific model is - it is a conceptual model that allows us to successfully predict the outcome of an experiment. And it has to be falsifiable. It does not have to be "impersonal" - in the way that wave and particle are indeed "impersonal" and indeed work very well as scientific models.

It is not a scientific postulation because you are dealing with something of which you have no evidence for. In fact, you have no evidence to determine who the ID’er would be. In other words, it could be an alien or it could be God.

Therefore it is just a claim. Not a scientific one. Scientific claims are based on observations. There is no observation that leads towards a designer.

I think that positing the existence of an intelligent being with certain specific characteristics is an entirely legitimate scientific hypothesis. It can be tested. It can be falsified.

In what way could it be tested and falsified?

For instance, the so called irreducible complex. Each time they found one, it would be debunked. They would then just try to find another one and say it was the proof. Again, the new one would be falsified. What did they do? Go back to the drawing board to post a new one.

This would continue in a repeating cycle.

What to make of it? Because it is a supernatural being, the postulation could keep changing, thereby avoiding any true falsification.

There is no true falsification because the designer is held outside of the natural realm. Impervious to any observational testing.

Thereby, I can not scientifically say there is NOT a designer, nor can I scientifically say there IS a designer. It is something completely in the realm of theology.
Now, if a true stumping irreducible mechanism can be found, then, and only then, could there be a scientific claim for a helping hand outside of time and natural selection. Thus far, there has not been one.

it is a conceptual model that allows us to successfully predict the outcome of an experiment. And it has to be falsifiable. It does not have to be "impersonal" - in the way that wave and parti

What scientific model for a designer allows for prediction of an experiment?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Again, I do not personally feel that claiming a designer is anything hard for a person to do on a personal level. The whole abiogenesis thing leaves it plausible to claim that someone sparked life. Science cannot deal with that naturally right now. Of course, as a naturalist, I feel that the abiogenesis aspect of life will be solved, but that is a personal belief.

 

[Drew]

Hello VaultZero4Me:

This is a complex issue. If it is indeed true that an evolutionary model exists that does not include an intelligent designer and that fully explains all observational data, without any element of randomness whatsoever, then, and only then, can we say that a scientific model including an intelligent designer can be ruled out (i.e. by application of Occam's razor principle).

I stand by my claim that the existence of an intelligent design agent, with fixed characteristics, is indeed a legitimate scientific hypothesis. It can be tested, it can be verified. It can be falsified. I am not sure I fully understand what your objection to my position is, but I will make certain assumptions and proceed anyway. I suspect that I did not make it clear that I am talking about "agents" with fixed and characterizable attributes.

I think that you are objecting to those who would claim that it is scientifically valid to put forward a model of an intelligent designer whose behaviour is inherently not predictable in a way that can be modeled. I am not talking about an agent with that property.

It is entirely legitimate to propose a scientific model for the universe that includes an intelligent agent of the type I am referring - one whose characteristics and behaviours are subject to characterisation that allows for the conduct of falsifiable experiments. There is nothing unscientific about such a model. Perhaps you will say that this is not really an "intelligent" designer. Fine.

But it remains the case that it is entirely legitimate to propose the existence of some kind of "agent" in the universe with certain properties and characteristics if we can make predictions and falsify them.

Let's return to my example of the adulterous male who gets consumed in flame after an act of adultery. Is is possible that a universe exists where we observe such an event when any act of adultery occurs? Of course it is possible. Can we construct a scientific model that makes falsifiable predictions about this that does not include any concept of an "agent"? Perhaps. Perhaps we can modify string theory and other theories so that somehow falsifiable predictions about this phenomena can be generated. Fine.

But there is nothing wrong with constructing a scientific model that posits the existence of an "agent" that has the following predictable behaviour: "Every time the agent sees adultery, the agents consumes the adulterious male in flames".

This is clear and testable prediction.

It can be falsified.

It is therefore a legitimate scientific hypothesis.

I am not sure I understand in precisely what you ground your "supernatural" vs "natural" distinction. Perhaps we need to have a discussion about that as well.

 

[TanNinety]

From a scientific standpoint, you cannot falsify that claim. You are talking supernatural guidance. Science can only deal with the natural world.

I do not think Drew is suggesting 'super'natural guidance. Instead, that we can see the intelligence in the design without adding the clause "god-did-it". I think he is not trying to hypothesize a creator himself but to test evidence for "being created".

Therefore it is just a claim. Not a scientific one. Scientific claims are based on observations. There is no observation that leads towards a designer.

When Darwin postulated "natural selection" on what observations did he base it on? I think you need to revisit your above statement. Scientific "facts" are based on observations whereas claims can be based on rational intersubjective imagination. String theory is mostly mathematical imagination, no observable evidence for it, but it still stays on the table as a valid claim until it is observed to be right or falsified by another stronger theory.

For instance, the so called irreducible complex. Each time they found one, it would be debunked. They would then just try to find another one and say it was the proof. Again, the new one would be falsified. What did they do? Go back to the drawing board to post a new one.

I agree that "god-of-the-gaps" is bad theology or actually the worst theology out there. But intelligent design is not based on the "gaps" of what we do not know but actually based on what we do know. If I saw the taj-mahal I will say it was a creation, based on several characteristics. I do not have to claim anything about the creator or describe the creator. That is irrelavant.

There is no true falsification because the designer is held outside of the natural realm. Impervious to any observational testing.

But I am not quite sure if we have to claim anything about and test the designer. We have dishes looking into the skies listening to frequencies coming from alien worlds. How do we know what is noise and what isn't? How are we capable of descerning an actual communication signal from radiation noise? Because we can tell design when we see it. And when we do get a valid signal from far far away are we going to throw that data out because we cannot claim who the designer was? Is it not scientific research just because we cannot explain the origin or the design of what we may one day hear?

But of course, I could have mis-read Drew's position. :infinity:

*Edited for spelling.

 

[Drew]

Hello Tan!

I have not even read your post yet, I will imediately after posting this post - perhaps you think I am out to lunch. Just wanted to express how happy I am to know a person of your generosity and insight is still hanging around!

 

[Drew]

OK Tan, now I have read your post. I will have to cogitate on it before responding.

 

[TanNinety]

Thank you for your kind words Drew. I think we might be close in our thoughts about the issue but there are still little differences. It would be interesting to see how the thread pans out.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Maybe I was too hasty in reply.

But it remains the case that it is entirely legitimate to propose the existence of some kind of "agent" in the universe with certain properties and characteristics if we can make predictions and falsify them.

What predictions does claiming an intelligent designer make that we could empirically test and falsify in regards to evolution?

 

[Rick W]

How do you empirically test and falsify the theory of process of evolution?
Sorting things as one thinks they should be sorted regardless of the rules of the sort doesn't prove a process of how those things came to exist but rather demonstrates the abundant variety of life and the magnitude of the imagination of the Creator.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

evolution disproves needing a guiding hand.

All known species and variety of life has thus far shown the progression to be due to natural processes alone.

And evolutionary law isn't just demonstrated by laying some fossils in a row, genetics plays a major part of the law now.

So, due to Occam's razor, I rule out an intelligent designer from the processes of evolution, since if he did exist, he would have been pretty bored during the entirety of history. He wouldn't have actually done anything. I can't rule out some kind of designer at the abiogenesis stage through science yet though.

 

[Drew]

Maybe I was too hasty in reply.

But it remains the case that it is entirely legitimate to propose the existence of some kind of "agent" in the universe with certain properties and characteristics if we can make predictions and falsify them.

What predictions does claiming an intelligent designer make that we could empirically test and falsify in regards to evolution?

I cannot think of anything specific off the top of the old head. And I suspect that the present ensemble of observations can probably indeed be characterized by a scientific model that does not appeal to the existence of an intelligent "guiding hand".

I know very little about the subject of evolution, but I will attempt to give you a flavour of where I am coming from. I suspect that you are aware of the whole issue of how certain "parameters" of our universe seem, and I repeat seem, to have been selected to "just the right value" to allow for the evolution of life. One example is this famous thing about the rate of expansion of the universe - I am told that if it was just a teeny bit higher - no possibility of life, and a teeny bit lower - again, no possibility of life.

I hope you do not think that I am so naive as to claim that this clearly supports "intelligent design". However, I think it might, depending on other things. If ours is one of many universes whose "parameters" are set "by random", then sooner or later a universe will spring into being which has "just the right settings" - and it is only in that universe that life will evolve to ask the very question at issue. In such a case, the people in that universe cannot legitimately claim that their universe is designed any more than a lottery winner can claim that they have "divinely ordained" to win a lottery in which 30 million other people did not.

In such a case, its "simply a matter of probabilty" (this is a simplification, but I think you know what I mean) - sooner or later a universe with the "right" setting was bound to pop into existence.

But what if there is only one universe? How would we then account for it having "just the right settings"? We could propose at the least the following, I would suggest:

1. Incredible "good luck"
2. Logical necessity - the settings simply could not have been any different.
3. Intelligent agent.

I am not sure that one can simply dismiss option number 3.

This is a complex issue, not least in terms of exactly what we mean by the term "randomness", but I will stop at this point.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I know very little about the subject of evolution, but I will attempt to give you a flavour of where I am coming from. I suspect that you are aware of the whole issue of how certain "parameters" of our universe seem, and I repeat seem, to have been selected to "just the right value" to allow for the evolution of life. One example is this famous thing about the rate of expansion of the universe - I am told that if it was just a teeny bit higher - no possibility of life, and a teeny bit lower - again, no possibility of life.

I agree, there is much to wonder at the parameters, and no one has come up with a scientific reason why it should be, other than the anthropic principle or MV, which really doesnt satisfy me. Of course I am not a cosmologist, so when I say "satisfy me", I mean as a matter of principle.

But what if there is only one universe? How would we then account for it having "just the right settings"? We could propose at the least the following, I would suggest:

1. Incredible "good luck"
2. Logical necessity - the settings simply could not have been any different.
3. Intelligent agent.

I am not sure that one can simply dismiss option number 3.

This is a complex issue, not least in terms of exactly what we mean by the term "randomness", but I will stop at this point.

Point taken. And I wouldn't dare say that someone picking number 3 as a personal philosophy would be unintelligent. The are many scientists who take that very position. My dad, who holds a phd in chemistry, and well known in his field, is one of those. He certainly believes in a creator.

But, as science, I do not find it fulfilling. Why? Because it just pushes everything up one level. If there is a creator, than he must have been created somehow. Who created him? Where did he come from?

Now I know the answer is he doesn't need one, because he is omnipotent, but that, in my opinion is a convient escape route for that logical reasoning, and certainly worse off than just saying the universe is the way it is.

The reason I believe it doesn't belong in science is because it opens up more questions, and could lead to scientific sloth. If we just assume things are the way they are because a creator did it that way, we never seek another answer. We would not have the complex story of evolutionary law, or cosmology.

In the end I think it is a valid philosophical position for someone to believe that there is a creator through faith, but unless someone can show an empirical way to test the ID'er hypothesis with some sort of observation, not a valid scientific position.

My acceptance of evolution comes from a novice understanding. I read books, and try to find latest stuff on the internet and science journals. So again, I am not trying to seem like I am speaking as some genetic scientist or something, I am just a lowly degreed business man

 

[TanNinety]

evolution disproves needing a guiding hand.

The irony here is that the above is not a scientific claim that you so often are so interested in. I do not see evolution making any statement about a "guiding hand" to even start disproving it. If your statement were true I wouldn't find any theistic evolutionist around and the term would just be an oxymoron.

All known species and variety of life has thus far shown the progression to be due to natural processes alone.

And what is the scientific setup that ensures that "natural processes alone" were present and anything out of the natural was unarguably removed? You seem to subtly contradict yourself in this regard. You say science cannot measure the supernatural, yet use science to say that supernatural wasn't present. Which is it?

So, due to Occam's razor, I rule out an intelligent designer from the processes of evolution

If you are going to use the true sense of Ockham's razor you will have to rule out "natural selection" when you are describing evolution. When describing a phenomena Ockhams razor is used to weed out the addition of unnecessary entities. Thus, "evolution is a process through which a comon ancestor developed into many species" is what Ockham's razor would have you say. The razor would eliminate not just the "intelligent designer" part of it but also "natural selection" part of it. The razor in my opinion removes the "because of" clause from an assertion.

AFAIK, hardcore scientists really do not use Ockham's razor to evaluate theories anyway. In some cases even when there is data Ockham's razor fails. The often misquoted "the simplest solution is the correct solution" is untrue. If it were true, "God created everything" would have been the simplest solution with only "God" being the single entity where as in evolution you have a compartively complex solution for how the species came about.

I think Drew nailed it with his last post. I could not have said it any better.

In the end I think it is a valid philosophical position for someone to believe that there is a creator through faith, but unless someone can show an empirical way to test the ID'er hypothesis with some sort of observation, not a valid scientific position.

If science is only about data then you have missed the beauty of it. How many scientists imagined things which were found to be true years after they died? Natural selection was Darwin's imagination. There wasn't any observation for his scientific claim ..yet at that point of time. The observations came later.

I will leave you with this quote from Karl Popper:
"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

If science was all about data and nothing else, it would be a very boring discipline for me. Don't let your Ockham's razor paint you into a box.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The irony here is that the above is not a scientific claim that you so often are so interested in. I do not see evolution making any statement about a "guiding hand" to even start disproving it. If your statement were true I wouldn't find any theistic evolutionist around and the term would just be an oxymoron.

Before we can continue discussing, you need to be clear of what you are saying. Are you asking if science disproves a creator? That is not what I am saying. I used the "disproves the need" term losely. I mean, with evolution, there is no creator needed. All we need is natural processes. Now, if you want to say that there is a creator for the natural laws, then you are outside the scope of evolution. Evolutionary law just shows the progression due to those natural forces.

I wouldn't find any theistic evolutionist around and the term would just be an oxymoron.

By that do you mean scientists who claim evolution needs a deity, or evolutionists who believe personally in a deity?

And what is the scientific setup that ensures that "natural processes alone" were present and anything out of the natural was unarguably removed? You seem to subtly contradict yourself in this regard. You say science cannot measure the supernatural, yet use science to say that supernatural wasn't present. Which is it?

You are misconstruing my argument..

I mereley said that, evolution needs no guiding hand, therefore Occam's razor suggests that you should not muddle evolution with a designer. I never said evolution disproves a creator. It just doesn't need one.

When describing a phenomena Ockhams razor is used to weed out the addition of unnecessary entities. Thus, "evolution is a process through which a comon ancestor developed into many species" is what Ockham's razor would have you say. The razor would eliminate not just the "intelligent designer" part of it but also "natural selection" part of it.

I could also say that Occams razor would cause me to say "We are here." and leave it at that, but that is not very descriptive. We need a process by which we are here if we want to understand ourselves. Evolutionary law fits the data, and does so without needing to evoke a guiding hand. That is all I am saying.

AFAIK, hardcore scientists really do not use Ockham's razor to evaluate theories anyway.

Again, I never said scientists live by the rule of Occams razor, but you must admit that everyone of them use it to sort through the countless number of theories. Otherwise there would be much wasted effort. It is a good ball park screener. Doesn't mean it is the end all.

"the simplest solution is the correct solution"

I never said that. But it is true that the simplest solutions that fit the data TEND to be true. Therefore when screening through countless theories, it is usually more productive to look at those first, and test them.

If science is only about data then you have missed the beauty of it. How many scientists imagined things which were found to be true years after they died? Natural selection was Darwin's imagination. There wasn't any observation for his scientific claim ..yet at that point of time. The observations came later.

Of course one needs imagination, but science is a method of empirically studying the data to resolve the imaginative theories. I never said that scientist just stare at data all day. Every good scientist was a dreamer.

But on your point, how many more theories were dreamed that were proven false through scientific study? There certainly are more failed theories than realized ones. That is where the science comes in.

 

[TanNinety]

If I seemed to be burning strawman, I apologize, wasn't my intention.

That is not what I am saying. I used the "disproves the need" term losely. I mean, with evolution, there is no creator needed.

I agree that you do not need to define a creator as a parameter for evolution but I see it as a far stretch to say that a creator wasn't involved. When someone (not saying you) makes such a claim, it isn't based on sound science, actually science doesn't even substantiate such a claim.

Evolutionary law just shows the progression due to those natural forces.

Agreed. Evolution neither proves nor disproves a deity.

I mereley said that, evolution needs no guiding hand, therefore Occam's razor suggests that you should not muddle evolution with a designer. I never said evolution disproves a creator. It just doesn't need one.

I think we have to be more precise or careful than that. Evolution is a result of natural processes. I agree with that statement, but I am not quite sure if we can add "natural processes alone". Wouldn't that go against your ockham's razor? Why add "alone" when science is not able to confirm the presence or absence of a deity in the process? Your statement "it just doesn't need one" is misleading, it presumes we are somehow able to test for the complete absence of a deity in the process. Science does not guarantee that. So to make any of science make a theological claim would be vain. If you say, "we just don't need to define a designer in understanding evolution", then I would agree with you.

Again, I never said scientists live by the rule of Occams razor, but you must admit that everyone of them use it to sort through the countless number of theories. Otherwise there would be much wasted effort. It is a good ball park screener. Doesn't mean it is the end all.

I don't see much use of ockham's razor for evaluating theories, but for describing phenomena most definitely. Let's take Newton's formulation of classical mechanics and Lagrangian formulation of classical mechanics. These formulations can describe all of the classical dynamics with clear underlying mathematics. Both are valid theories with distinctly different approaches. Can we apply the razor to the above to see which theory is correct? The debate would go on forever. We cannot use ockham's razor to falsify theories. We can avoid defining a deity in the process of evolution with the razor but we cannot falsify the presence of a deity, thus we cannot make any claim that a deity is absent or not needed for evolution except that we don't need to consider one.

"the simplest solution is the correct solution"
I never said that. But it is true that the simplest solutions that fit the data TEND to be true.

I will have to quote you from here "Is space expanding?" thread where you said, "Usually the simplest solution is the correct one."
But the problem is "simplest" is a matter of opinion. We cannot define "simplest" objectively. Refer to the Newtonian vs Lagrangian classical mechanics.

But on your point, how many more theories were dreamed that were proven false through scientific study? There certainly are more failed theories than realized ones. That is where the science comes in.

I agree with you here. My point is that there isn't enough evidence or data that is inconsistent with a universe where there exists a creator or a designer. (I do not subscribe to ID or YEC)

On a side note, I do enjoy your posts on other issues and mostly agree with them.

 

[motile]

I suspect that you are aware of the whole issue of how certain "parameters" of our universe seem, and I repeat seem, to have been selected to "just the right value" to allow for the evolution of life. One example is this famous thing about the rate of expansion of the universe - I am told that if it was just a teeny bit higher - no possibility of life, and a teeny bit lower - again, no possibility of life.

Well the rate of expansion isn't really relevant, because the rate of expansion is an end result of the very settings your are eluding. It has more to do with the settings of forces (for example if the weak nuclear force of hydrogen was increased by 4%, then there would be no hydrogen in the Universe, for it would have all been converted into helium shortly after the Big Bang, no hydrogen then no stars, no stars then no heavy elements and no life).

I hope you do not think that I am so naive as to claim that this clearly supports "intelligent design". However, I think it might, depending on other things. If ours is one of many universes whose "parameters" are set "by random", then sooner or later a universe will spring into being which has "just the right settings" - and it is only in that universe that life will evolve to ask the very question at issue. In such a case, the people in that universe cannot legitimately claim that their universe is designed any more than a lottery winner can claim that they have "divinely ordained" to win a lottery in which 30 million other people did not.

In such a case, its "simply a matter of probability" (this is a simplification, but I think you know what I mean) - sooner or later a universe with the "right" setting was bound to pop into existence.

Indeed, it seems special to us because we happen to be the ones alive in this universe standing in awe of the numbers involved.

But what if there is only one universe? How would we then account for it having "just the right settings"? We could propose at the least the following, I would suggest:

Well, you don't need many universes (although, I am a supporter of Lee Smolin's current theories, I will link something below) all you need is a simple natural mechanism for arranging the higher dimensional settings. For example if you had a huge amount of different sized balls in a box and you wanted just one size an easy way to sort them would be to have a hole in the bottom of the box that would either let only your ball through or stop your balls falling through, in the end you would have the desired balls but your system was nothing more then a hole. In the universe shortly after the big bang there would have been all sorts of forces at work but only the settings that can exist in our universe would win. Gravity isn't a wave or a particle but rather a dip in space time. All matter that has mass makes an impression in space time, it is the extent of the dip that equals the strength of the pull of gravity. It is this simple system that could in theory sort the universe into one in which hydrogen can form, and so on.

The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes. Thus the theory contains the evolutionary ideas of "reproduction" and "mutation" of universes, but has no direct analogue of natural selection. However, given any universe that can produce black holes that successfully spawn new universes, it is possible that some number of those universes will reach heat death of the universe with unsuccessful parameters. So, in a sense, fecundity cosmological natural selection is one where universes could die off before successfully reproducing, just as any Human can die without having children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes

1. Incredible "good luck"

Luck would have had nothing to do with it. In fact, in a universe so vast it seems that we are not so lucky after all. Asteroids, viruses, black holes, gamma ray bursts, cold, heat...millions of things that would kill us, is it luck to be surrounded by so much danger? If it had been designed then it's not much of a design. Sure, some parts of our little world are lovely to our eyes but then that's more a case of the puddle sitting in the pothole looking around and thinking how perfectly designed the pothole is just for him, a humble puddle. Like the puddle we have adapted to parts of our world so it seems designed, and yes life may not have evolved at all in a different universe but then we can argue then maybe life would have evolved better in a different universe.

2. Logical necessity - the settings simply could not have been any different.

I think I covered this one already with my gravity/balls analogy.

3. Intelligent agent.

The problem with an intelligent agent is that it must by necessity be more complicated than the universe you seek to explain by evoking it. The Intelligent agent also requires explanation, or else it becomes a none answer. Where did the creator come from? Where did all that complex data and knowledge come from? Where did it's inherent complexity come from? Where does it derive it's power? What created the Intelligent agent? Surely the parameters that have to be in effect to allow for the existence of such a powerful and some would argue perfect being have to be even more precise than the ones we find in our own universe?

I am not sure that one can simply dismiss option number 3.

Because it's not an answer, it's a stop gap, a cop out. It's an even harder question to answer than the original because we can study and measure and observe the universe but we cannot study and measure and observe an Intelligent agent.

This is a complex issue, not least in terms of exactly what we mean by the term "randomness", but I will stop at this point.

It's an interesting issue indeed, complex issues are the best I think. I'm certain that very bright people will look long and hard for all the answers, I just hope they find some of the big ones in my life time. One of the biggest I think is "are we alone?", I think with 400 billion galaxies and each galaxy holding 200 billion stars then it has to be at the very least likely.