From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 09:19:22 EDT
Don,
Thanks for your candid comments on your own motivations re using fine-tuning
arguments. Such candor is helpful in discussion.
My comments here will be limited to the question of whether or not the ID
movement, 1) deserves any credit for stimulating fine-tuning investigation,
or 2) is using fine tuning arguments in a way consistent with the major ID
argumentation in the biological arena.
You say:
> In contrast to most creation research efforts, ID in the form of pointing
> out cosmic fine tuning has had, in my opinion, rather astounding successes.
> My understanding is that these successes have driven most cosmologists who
> concern themselves with the anthropic principle to retreat to multiple
> universe theories, where, out of many existing universes, ours by chance is
> the only one that happens to be finely tuned to support human life. Well,
> such speculation is never going to be more than pure philosophy, because no
> one can test for the existence of other universes. Consequently, the fine
> tuning of our world does in fact, for me, support the existence of a Tuner
> in roughly the same way that nature used to support the existence and
character of
> God for God's people of old.
1) The various "cosmic coincidences" employed in fine-tuning arguments were
known long before the advent of the ID movement. ID proponents are using the
results of work done earlier by others to argue that evidence for the fine
tuning of the universe is also evidence for their claim that the universe
was "intelligently designed." I see no basis for giving any credit to the ID
movement (Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyers, Wells, Nelson, et al) for
stimulating significant "creation research."
2) This use of the fine-tuning argument employs a rhetorical strategy that
directly contradicts the ID strategy in biology. Using excerpts from various
published pieces, here is the basis for my statement:
1. What is the RFEP?
The peculiar acronym RFEP stands for the Robust Formational Economy
Principle. By the formational economy of the universe I mean the set of all
of the universešs resources (such as its elementary particles and their
modes of interaction), formational capabilities (such as the capabilities of
atoms to form molecules) and potentialities (such as all possible molecular
configurations) that have contributed to the formational history of the
universe. To say that the universe satisfies the RFE Principle is to posit
that the formational economy of the universe is sufficiently robust (amply
equipped) to make possiblewithout need for supplementary acts of
form-conferring divine interventionthe actualization of every category of
physical structure and biological organism that has ever appeared in the
universešs formational history. [from PSCF, December 2002, p. 232]
In the arena of biology the standard ID strategy is to argue that they have
firm empirical evidence that some biotic system "X" could not possibly have
been assembled by purely natural causes and must therefore, have been
"intelligently designed." Furthermore, from a careful reading of ID
theoretical centerpieces such as Dembski's No Free Lunch one can infer that
to say that "X was intelligently designed" is equivalent to saying that the
assembly of X (at least for the fist time) required one or more episodes of
non-natural, non-miraculous, non-energetic, form-conferring intervention by
some unidentified, unembodied, choice-making agent.
On other words, in the arena of biological structures (like the bacterial
flagellum) the non-natural action that is called "intelligent design" by its
proponents is declared to be necessary because the universe DOES NOT satisfy
the Robust Formational Economy Principle.
ID's use of the fine-tuning argument follows the opposite strategy. Fine
tuning arguments point out (correctly, it seems) that the numerical values
of several fundamental cosmic parameters are "just right" in the sense that
if any of them were slightly different, carbon-based life (including us)
could not have evolved. To say essentially the same thing in my preferred
vocabulary: The values of all cosmic parameters appear to be fine-tuned to
satisfy the RFEP. So, when ID proponents appeal to cosmic fine tuning as
evidence in their favor they are saying, in essence, that a universe could
satisfy the RFEP only if it were the product of intelligent design. Or,
intelligent design action is necessary because the universe DOES satisfy the
RFEP.
In response to Steve Meyer's chapter in Science and Christianity: Four
Views, I made the following comment:
Here, then, is the puzzling ambivalence. In his reflections on the
cosmological fine-tuning of the universe Meyeršs conclusion of the need for
ID is based on an appeal to the remarkable features (special values of
cosmological parameters) that the universe does exhibit. As I noted above,
Meyer argues, in essence, that if the Robust Formational Economy Principle
is true, then ID is also true. But in his reflection on the character of
biological structures the argument seems based on an appeal to certain
features (specific formational capabilities) that the universe does not
exhibit. In essence, Meyer appeals to biological examples to argue that if
the Robust Formational Economy Principle is false, then ID must be true.
Putting these two arguments side by side, it looks like the old trick line,
"Heads I win, tails you lose." ( p. 194)
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 09:48:29 EDT