In dealing with the eonic effect we have to deal with two sets of idiots: scientists and religious fanatics.The first will distort science to found atheism, and the second will distort science to found theism. The idea of a multiverse is indeed a confusing and suspicious idea. But the claims that fine-tuning pertains to a proof of god’s existence’ is grossly confused.
However, some of the criticisms from ID-ists are useful to consider. But recently they have lost discipline and can’t resist spoiling their own subject by jumping to conclusions that are theological. The critique of natural selection, in origin from scientists themselves, is useful in the context of massive indoctrination in Darwinism and the culture of enforced pseudo-science that makes dissent almost dangerous.
Our point here, just to be brief, is that fine-tuning is not a proof of the existence of ‘god’. The term is undefined, used with gross semantic abuse in multiple contexts and routinely annexed with biblical citations as transferable between domains of discourse. You cannot use the Old Testament in discussions of ‘intelligent’ design. The whole is a theological lost cause. Every page is full of the mythical saga and epic narrative. The subject will prove antimonial in a Kantian sense.
The original text suggests via its indicator IHVH a considerable wariness about the terms of ‘god’ reference. And sure enough, as IHVHI became Yahweh the degenerate theologies of godism came into existence. That had already happened by the time of the Exile and after when the early tests of the Israelites were codified (and ruined).
People are conditioned to beliefs in the sanctity of god reference but the reality is that of a hopeless morass of semantic chaos.
If you consider the reality of ‘intelligent’ design in a given context you cannot take off those quote marks unless you can specify the agency cited.
The issue of ‘god’ in nature is hopelessly incoherent, and the Old Testament is not usable anymore for any discussion of physical cosmology or social history.
The study of the eonic effect is useful because it shows that ‘intelligent’ design in history is real but contradicts the old testament account, and must remain agnostic about issues of divinity external to nature. Many discussions imply a kind of ‘pantheism’ which is a dangerous path but in principle a different issue than that of ‘god’ in extra-nature.
That’s the trap of the ID groups: they use science after a fashion to show ‘design’ but then collate Old Testament accounts with ‘scientific’ accounts.
We cannot prove either the reality of a natural pantheistic entity, but then again it equally fallacious to consider reductionist myths of an imagined science beyond physics. The proof of such an entity is essentially beyond any form of knowledge so it is probably metaphysical. In theory, a ‘pantheistic’ entity could be subject naturalist science, by definition, but in practice that is a hopless endeavor. That nature seems superintelligent or super ‘intelligent’ allows no inference about that in essence. There is no simple scale that allows us to infer that ‘supperintelligent’ refers to a mind.
One irony is that the eonic effect shows not intelligent design but super ‘intelligent’ design in the sense of presumably mechanized process beyond the capacity of ‘mere’ intelligence of the human variety. Atheists and theists tend to fanaticism and cannot debate in a serious manner. We don’t know what that means as yet.
It is my suspicion that science of evolution is a branch of cosmology and specifically of the study of planetary object which cradle the emergence of life.