> 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 ;-).
This is a very important point, and worthy of some serious consideration.
I have also seen the Anthropic Principle used both ways.
Brian also wrote:
> 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.
I agree, we need to be careful, cautious, and _consistent_ in our
arguments about design, fine-tuning, and the Anthropic Principle.
For example, let me paraphrase and juxtapose four statements which I
often hear in the origins debate and on this reflector:
(A) The fine-tuning of natural laws necessary for an "interesting"
cosmos (i.e. one with structure) to exist is evidence for a
supernatural Creator/Designer.
(B) The incredible fine-tuning of natural laws necessary for life
to exist is evidence for a supernatural Creator/Designer.
(C) The astonishing fine-tuning of natural laws necessary for heavy
elements, stars, and habitable planets to evolve (self-organize)
after the Big Bang is evidence for a supernatural Creator/Designer.
(D) If it turns out that there really is an indescribably amazing
fine-tuning of natural laws which allow life to evolve
(self-organize) on a prebiotic earth, and which also allow
biological novelty to evolve, then that will be evidence AGAINST
a supernatural Creator/Designer.
That, my dear friends, is inconsistency.
Which road are we going to take?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to add my own cautionary note to the design-from-fine-tuning
arguments. I think they have some validity, however:
Right now, the most fundamental empirically verified physics theory is the
"standard model," which includes over 20 "free parameters" (particle
masses, field strenghts, etc.). The Anthropic Principle says that each of
those must be set within a very small range for intelligent life to exist.
Physicists generally expect a more fundamental theory will eventually come
along, one with fewer "free parameters." If this new fundamental theory
has just as much "fine tuning" as the standard model, theists won't mind a
bit. However, most atheists are hoping that the new fundamental theory
will do one of two things:
1) The new fundamental theory will have very few or no free parameters,
and the apparent "fine tuning" will simply be the logical consequences of
any self-consistent theory.
2) The new fundamental theory will predict, as a natural (non ad-hoc)
consequence, that there are a vast number of causally disconnected
universes, each with their own set of physical constants.
Suppose one of these two possibilities really does happen? Would it be a
serious blow to the design-from-fine-tuning argument? Yes. Would it be a
serious blow to theism? No. (Neither can answer the question of why the
universe exists at all.) HOWEVER, if we (collectively) put too much
emphasis on the design-from-fine-tuning argument, we might generate the
APPEARANCE that theism was harmed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You should always save hyperbole |
until you really need it." | Loren Haarsma
--Hobbes (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu