Steven Clark wrote:
> I have heard a similar argument used against the anthropic principle. For
> instance, someone invoking the AP might state something like, "If
> subatomic forces were just a fraction different, the universe would
> consist of nothing but helium atoms." The criticism is that if this force
> were changed, why assume that all other constants would remain the same?
And subsequent interesting remarks were made in related postings by these
authors.
These are valid counterarguments against anyone who is using the fine-
tuning argument to PROVE intelligent design in the early universe. While
there might be such folks, I view this as knocking down a straw man.
Suppose we posit that no argument is going to PROVE the existence of God.
Then what should a Christian be looking for in nature to add apologetic
strength to his/her faith? I would argue that these fine-tuning arguments
actually do an excellent job of lending apologetic strength.
Let me explain:
Yes, it could be that other fine-tuning-combinations of "constants of
nature" would make life possible. Yes, possible. But, presently, we have
not a single shred of evidence supporting this possibility. Instead, what
we do see clearly is that small perturbations cause big problems for life.
While not a proof (which Christians should not really be looking for),
this ("fine-tuning") does provide a strong apologetic argument for
intelligent design at our present level of knowledge. What more should we
ask for?
If, as noted, fine-tuning is a necessary consequence of GUT, then this too
smells of intelligent design.
Of course, highly speculative "many-worlds arguments" have been suggested
to "explain" the observed "fine-tuning" in "our universe," but these,
presently, have not a shred of evidence. Unsupported models are a dime a
dozen.
Thanks, guys (Brian and Steve), for your comments.
Gordon Simons