How could a cosmic order be responsible for something so intricate unless it represented something 'intelligent'?

Why not? Why does complexity indicate intelligence? Incredibly complicated natural formations have occured due to simple natural processes. The symmetric yet unique forms that snowflakes take, for example, or the fractal patterns formed by trees. All of these things follow from simple, natural laws.

Also, the design shown in physics equations favors the emergence of intelligence in the universe.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Why would the universe favor the emergence of intelligence? I would suspect that entropy would cancel this out in the long run.

we shouldn't take some deist approaches by saying the cosmic order worked for the start of the universe but somehow stopped working after it all got going. That wouldn't make sense.

Agreed. Which is precisely why I suspect that your divine order is not sentient. A watchmaker God who crafts the entire universe, sets it in motions, and then proceeds to sit on his hands for all eternity seems a bit ludicrous. So, if God is acting in our universe, wouldn't we expect to see signs of intelligent intervention in the universe around us? Why don't we? Why does the universe seem to follow fairly rigid laws? If God is out there, an intelligent, thinking force with a will of its own, I would expect to see it acting in our day to day lives more.

Can we agree that if there is a cosmic order that the ordering processes that it influences would be present in any and every system in the Cosmos? In other words, this cosmic order would be just as apparent in your life as it is on some rock floating around Alpha Centuri.

Yes, I would suspect that any Cosmic Order would be, well, cosmic.

"Does God really have to watch all this Language Removed?"
-George Carlin

• We need to further define ourselves - harvey1 - January 13, 2002 - 22:11 UTC
  • Okay - stormcrow - January 14, 2002 - 05:14 UTC
    • More on cosmic order - harvey1 - January 14, 2002 - 16:10 UTC
      • Re: the good paper cited above - occupant - January 14, 2002 - 21:17 UTC
        • corrections to first edition of "Re: the good paper cited above" - occupant - January 14, 2002 - 23:30 UTC
      • We (humans) are nothing special in universe. - alexander - January 15, 2002 - 08:56 UTC
        • Huh? - harvey1 - January 16, 2002 - 05:11 UTC
          • I always read Harvey's posts - yanniru - January 16, 2002 - 14:35 UTC
            • Thanks - harvey1 - January 16, 2002 - 15:03 UTC
            • Please do not read this if you are not here yet - quiet - January 16, 2002 - 21:31 UTC
              • The patient is better - yanniru - January 17, 2002 - 14:40 UTC
      • Sorry I took so long... - stormcrow - January 17, 2002 - 19:55 UTC
        • No big deal - harvey1 - January 18, 2002 - 20:04 UTC