afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
I predict that Michael Denton will probably go down in history as one of the most influential scientists of the 20th Century. Henry Morris may actually claim the leading title for his leadership of the modern Creationist revival, but there is no doubt that men like Michael Denton, Michael Behe and William Dembski will be names long remembered once the rotting corpse of Darwin's General Theory of Evolution is buried and forgotten.
And so we take one more look at one of my favorite books, "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton and discuss briefly, the Anthropic Principle. From the fly-leaf of the book ...
| Quote | In Nature's Destiny, Michael Denton marshals a stunning range of biological, chemical, and physical evidence to answer systematically a simple question: Could life elsewhere in the universe be significantly different from life on earth? Must it rely on carbon, water, DNA, amino acids, and proteins? COuld there be an alternative to DNA, or could DNA be constructed out of different components? Could cells be designed differently? From these building blocks he dares to ask the boldest questions: Is it possible there are life forms radically different from those realized during the course of evolution on Earth? And even: Is a Homo sapiens--like creature the only possible highly intelligent species, given the laws of biology that exist throughout the universe?
The stunning answer to this last question is yes. Life is highly constrained by the laws of nature. If, for example, the ratio between strong and weak chemical bonds had not been what it is, if the thermal properties of water were not precisely what they are, if the atmosphere of the Earth had not had just the right properties to filter out harmful radiation, then a flourishing biosphere such as exists on Earth would be impossible. For like to develop beyond the most primitive stage hinted at by the famous Mars fossils requires an earthlike planet, with earthlike atmosphere and oceans.
Over the past twenty years, such physicists as Freeman Dyson, Fred Hoyle, Martin Rees and Paul Davies have argued that the universe is fine-tuned for carbon-based life. Now, Michael Denton extends their argument all the way from the carbon atom to advanced and complex life forms closely resembling ourselves, showing that our biosphere is central to nature's destiny. Though we may have six-fingered cousins elsewhere, the laws of nature are tuned to reach an endpoint in mankind. |
Denton goes on to make an excellent case for his claims and concludes with this ...
| Quote | | All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact ... As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has been for centuries the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in these final days of the second millenium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently wished--the "defender of the anthropocentric faith. |
Now for some objections from our good friends at Talk Origins ...
| Quote |
The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos. |
Yes. Life in its present form IS a given. (This author is bright! No. You cannot fine tune life, then build a cosmos. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You know ... gotta do site prep then build the foundation before you build the house. See? (Wow, these are convincing rebuttals, guys. I can see why you got taken in!
| Quote | | We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible. |
Oh yeah, sure. The old "alternate universe" theory. I know of an alternate universe in Alice and Wonderland.
| Quote | | Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes. |
This author couldn't think of a new rebuttal, so he re-used the second half of the first one.
| Quote | | If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it? |
Good question. Worth investigating. But that doesn't argue against the fact that it is indeed fine tuned for life. Try reading the Bible for clues to WHY it is here and no place else.
| Quote | | Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002). |
Gimme a break. Elsewhere on the Talk Origins site, the authors had ample opportunity to refute Cosmic Fine Tuning and they did not. Why not? Because they could not. You can see this Here.
| Quote | | How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument. |
No, it is very objective. Sorry. It's very well defined. Read Dyson, Hoyle, Rees, Davies and Denton.
| Quote | | The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible. |
Maybe so, but are you telling me that this weakening is a big deal when you are talking about some 70 different parameters that have to be right for life to exist? Come on.
| Quote | | If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else. |
Oh boy. The brain damage is bad. Call the neuro-surgeon! Wow. That is a brilliant statement: "If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it." I think there's an echo. Isn't that what we've been saying? I thought I just got through saying this very thing ... "If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it." How exactly is this a rebuttal of my argument? Oh, and of course the multiple universe thing again, which Faid told me had been dropped, but here it is again.
| Quote | | Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000). |
Well, it is a logical conclusion in OUR universe. But I understand ... you guys are in a different one. Sure, there could be other causes. Like chance for example, with a probability of 1 in 50 gazillion googolplex.
| Quote | | In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it. |
OK. So the anthropic principle might argue against an omnipotent creator if you are in one of those alternate universes, but again, in this universe, it argues FOR one. Fine. Postulate a God anyway you like. But the fact is humans are here and the universe is fine tuned for them. The fun question is WHY? Again, enter the Bible.
OK. Fire away if you can! I'll cut and paste some of your "Ape Objections" onto this thread so you don't think I abandoned you. As for Portuguese ... you guys can go argue that one among yourselves. You don't like what I have to say anyway, so why would you want me involved? To me it sounds like "The sky is blue. No it's not ... you're an idiot. Yes it is, see, look at it. It's not EXACTLY blue, see, it's really Royal Blue. And here we have all these sources that don't say anything about it being blue to prove that it's Royal Blue. Come argue with us, please, Davy. We really want to show you how smart we are and how dumb you are. OK? Please?"
Until manana! Or manhao! (for you Portuguese fans) (I don't know how to do the tildes)
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
