Now, if we were to apply the anthropic principle to this issue (something
I have never seen done in this context - has anyone else?), we might
argue, contrarily, as follows: Look. Were we not living on a planet with
truly remarkable properties that make intelligent life possible, we would
not be able to raise the question of extraterrestrial life. So why do we
have any reason to believe that this fortuitous situation is normal
throughout the universe?
Those who are familiar with the use of the anthropic principle will no
doubt recall that this has been used against Christians who see strong
evidence of design in the constants of nature. The argument: "Yes, but if
these constants were not so finely tuned, life would be impossible, and we
would not be around to wonder about the remarkable fine-tuning of these
constants of nature. (See _The Creator and the Cosmos_ by Hugh Ross, pages
111-114, for a description of 25 of these constants.)
In this regard, it is my understanding that theoretical physicist Stephen
Hawking is now contemplating a mathematical model which includes an
infinite number of multipli-connected parallel universes (see _Hyperspace_
by Michio Kaku, Chapter 12), with almost all of them possessing constants
of nature totally incompatible with life - save our own. So why not a mere
10 to the 22 stars with planetary systems and individual planets that are
incompatible with life - save the one we know about on planet Earth?
Gordon Simons