Evolution and Big Bang theory

There is far more "design" in cosmology than in biological evolution :-) As Sylas says where-as Big-Bang cosmology is so ordered, it stinks of design! Primordial elements clumping together into the first generation of stars, which only work because the fundemental constants are so fine-tuned to allow the proton-proton chain chance to work. Then these stars just so happen to be the element cookers that generate all of the heavier elements and then kindly distribute these elements throughout the universe, just so that the next generation of star-formation has everything it needs to allow us to come into existence!Now any god who thought up that lot must be pretty clever... but our God is such a genius that He even throws in the anthropic principle, just in case anyone is foolish enough to try and use this almost-infallible design argument to prove His non-existence re the Babelfish :-)

No, becasue out of the infinitude of possible "universes" only an infinitessimal fraction of those are capable of bringing forth life. You only have to tweak the fundemental constants by very small margins to change the nature of the universe completely, so that we don't have stars (or for not very long), we don't have the elements, we don't have water, etc, etc. Why should we exist at all? We live in a very special universe, simply becasue we are here to notice that it is very special. This smacks of design. I won't always say that the universe has a very small chance of being this way, because in virtually all cases, I (and the rest of life) won't exist!BUT if we allow for not just one "universe", but a large number (possibly infinite) then of course there are going to be universes (no matter how improbable) where conditions are going to be suitable for our existence. Then surprise, surprise, we find ourselves in such a universe!We have long had mechanisms for "infinite" numbers of "universes" - the oscillating version of big bang was the first I guess, though it was pure conjecture and not actually a real solution of GR. Here you have an infinite sequence of big bangs and big crunches, each universe following sequentially after the previous. There have been subsequent models in extended GR which mimic this kind of behaviour, and plenty of black-hole solutions provide an infinite number of universes (tho' whether phyisically viable is another matter). Then Linde (amongst others) in the 90s proposed his bubble nucleation idea, where "universes" are springing up all over an encompassing "multi-verse". This has been given a nice formal setting in M-theory with our colliding branes providing the mechanism for the nucleation.What I am saying is that our observable universe is so cut-out for life, it's incredible... so incredible that it credibly gives rise to design arguments. BUT if enough universes can come and go then the incredible just becomes the possible, if not the probable. And the design argument is invalidated.You cannot "prove" God by looking at the universe. To leave fingerprints, you require grease, and God does not have greasy hands :-)