[...]
>
>The conclusion that some have drawn from this is called the Anthropic
>Principle: "far from being an 'accident,' the existence of human life is
>something for which the entire universe appears to have been intricately
>fine-tuned from the start."
>
At best, this is a rough paraphrase of one version of the Strong
Anthropic Principle and then only if you replace "human life" by
something like "carbon-based life forms", "any imaginable life"
"intelligent observers (of any type)" etc. depending on the type
of fine-tuning under discussion. "Anthropic" was a poor choice in
terminology since the Anthropic Principle has nothing to do with
"us" specifically except to the extent that we are specific examples
of the more general categories mentioned above.
The Anthropic Principle is a good example of where one really
needs to spend a lot of effort studying the primary literature
if one wants to really figure out what is going on. The subject
is extremely confusing as the Anthropic Principle is taken to
be essentially equivalent to the design argument in some places
and in others it is considered to be the ultimate refutation of
the design argument ;-).
The author that you quoted mentioned Brandon Carter's pioneering
work. The citation given provided the first definition of the
Weak Anthropic Principle:
"... what we can expect to observe must be restricted by the
conditions necessary for our presence as observers"
-- Brandon Carter (1974). "Large Number Coincidences
and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology,"
in <Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with
with Observational Data>, M.S. Longair (ed.),
pp. 291-298.
>The result could be a wrenching about face in how science portrays man's
>place in the universe. Both the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions
>(some would add Freud) were controversial primarily because they
>marginalized man and attacked the central place Christianity had for him
>in creation. This completely turns the tables, creating a universe that
>seems to be precisely fine-tuned just so we can be here.
>
Again we have to be careful here. In most cases, the fine-tuning
results in a Universe in which carbon based life forms can evolve
by natural processes. Interestingly enough, most proponents of
the design argument based on fine-tuning (in the primary literature)
would consider: (a) showing life would arise under suitable prebiotic
conditions with probablity near 1 and (b) finding that life is common
in the Universe to be a tremendous boost to their design argument.
========================
Brian Harper | "I can't take my guesses back
Associate Professor | That I based on almost facts
Applied Mechanics | That ain't necessarily so"
Ohio State University | -- Willie Nelson
========================