deadman_932
Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:26) | Here before you is a scientific (and scientifically falsifiable) ID hypothesis.
Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.
It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis. The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
| Quote | The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.
The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.
Less devastating but still relevant, would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.
For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.
Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment.
Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.
Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon.
Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.
Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.
---pages 314-315 |
So now, we clearly have a scientifically falsifiable ID hypothesis. It can be falsified via observation. This ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis. |
The "fine-tuning" argument or Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) has some major problems when applied to "inferences for god". It also contains a large number of fallacies that disqualify it as a valid scientific hypothesis -- especially one that provides evidential support for deities (which is what you're supposed to be supporting, Flody.)
1.) Tautology. These anthropocentric arguments always come down to statements that at least imply circular conclusions : " My god exists, therefore whatever we find proves it --heads I win, tails you lose"
If we manage to explore our universe and find no life anywhere, what should we conclude? That this is evidence for a loving God who crafted life on Earth despite the fact that this universe is otherwise very inhospitable to life? What if we find life everywhere we go? Gonzales would simply then conclude that this same god created a universe where life can thrive, and therefore must also exist! -- "Heads I win, tails you lose."
They ignore the obvious illogic of their claims...Would it surprise you to find yourself living in a universe that cannot sustain life? I know it would surprise me. Since we are, in fact, alive, it should come as no surprise at all to us that we inhabit a universe that can sustain life, but what does a “life-sustaining universe" mean? Does it mean a “universe identical to this one-- the universe is fine-tuned to be just like this universe?" That's a neat tautology. All of us are fundamentally ignorant about the parameter space in which something we would be willing to call life can occur. Thus Gonzales is also guilty of Argumentam ad Ignorantiam
Gonzales et al. simply have assumed their conclusions BEFORE evidence is in, and more importantly, according to what actual choices are available, whatever evidence is found, it will be claimed by Gonzales or some other creonut to tautologically provide support for the conclusions they have already arrived at.
Importantly, also, what the fine-tuning argument for God also does not do is to show that life is in any way favored, supported, or designed for anything except to die out as the universe slowly runs out of energy.
People, scientists and theists, often argue as if fine-tuning did show a concern for life, when life will in fact still face all of the problems that everything in this universe faces. One would have to show that life is some sort of "goal" or "preferred outcome" even to suggest that a single universe with life is "unusual" in any way. Creationists/IDists only assume that life is a meaningful outcome, while we have no excuse to suppose that it is meaningful in a cosmic sense (as opposed to our own sense), however likely or unlikely it may be. The fact of the matter is, we have a sample set of *ONE* universe that happens to contain life so far as we know. We have *ONE* planet on which life exists so far as we know.
We have NO IDEA how many other possible universes there are--multiverses have been mentioned here, but I also like Steinhardt and Turok's "cyclic" model, which is at least theoretically testable via gravity waves. ( see: P.J. Steinhardt and N. Turok: "Why the Cosmological Constant is Small and Positive." Science.312, May 26, 2006. ) We DO know that 180 or so likely planets have been tentatively discovered, though. But NO ONE knows what the "odds " really are. It has also been demonstrated repeatedly that life on Earth tends to evolve to fit the environment available. [i]It has never been demonstrated that the parameters for the environment were put in place first BY A SUPERNATURAL GOD [i/] (not an alien, Flody!!) with the preconceived "idea" or "plan" that life would exist there later.
2.) Post hoc ergo propter hoc, also known as "coincidental correlation" or "false cause," is a fallacy which assumes or asserts that if one event happens ( the development of life) *after* another ( the emergence of the Universe and its "fine tuning" ), then the one must be causally linked to the other.
An analogy: Imagine a 10,000-person "russian roulette" game, with pairs of people facing off in a "round-robin"-style competition. Winners are paired randomly against winners until there are only two left. Should the last person standing alive conclude that he or she is favored by God? Because "fine-tuning" seems to exist, can I reasonably conclude that life is causally linked to it? Or that chance favored it? Or that God caused it to be so?
3.) God of the Gaps -- see :"Is There Anything Wrong with 'God of the Gaps' Reasoning?" (International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 52: 129-142, 2002). A place you can plug God in, if you so wish, is before the Big Bang. You can also claim that this is where God did his "fine-tuning" , but, fundamentally, the god of the gaps argument is the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad ignorantium : basing a conclusion on a lack of information or understanding. The mere fact that we do cannot explain something is not a valid justification to rely upon something else, even more mysterious, as an "explanation." Such a tactic is also risky here because, as science progresses the "gaps" in scientific explanation grow smaller.
The theist who uses this to rationalize their beliefs may find that, at some point, there simply isn't enough room for their god anymore. In the past, it was common to point to lightning, thunder, earthquakes or other mysteries in nature and attribute them to some god. Unfortunately, even today many people think of God primarily as the explanation for things they don't understand. To define God in those terms, especially when Christians base their apologetics on the existence of such gaps, is a major error.
--------------------------------------
More importantly, Gonzales et al. are not distinguishing what YOU claim to be supporting, Flody. Read their statements and they have no way of distinguishing between "deities" and "extraterrestrials" capable of seeding a planet. This, along with the other fallacies and logical errors cited by myself and others, disqualify it as an actual scientific hypothesis that could provide support for Gods -- such as what YOU are nominally SUPPOSED to be trying to support, Flody.
If Gonzales can't show how to distinguish Gods and aliens, then how does this support your view, Flody? How does it make it a scientific program to research supernatural deities?
Given all the logical lapses, holes, and sheer ridiculous fallacy-mongering of Gonzales, it is perfectly obvious to point out that his nattering does NOT constitute a valid scientific research program FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF SUPERNATURAL DEITIES (which is what you were supposed to be showing, stupid).
Look back at all my posts on this matter -- I was asking you to show a valid scientific research program for the investigation of deities, and you post up crap , which --even if evidence is actually found for life being artificial on this planet -- cannot distinguish between "intelligent aliens from the planet Glurrgh " and "supernatural deities." You haven't presented any research program for the investigation of supernatural deities at all, dumb-ass
--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
|
