> Greetings Randy:
>
> "I guess at this point I need feedback(from anyone) on the exact nature of the "ID argument". My understanding from reading the work of
Hugh Ross is that there are dozens of physical constants in the universe which much exist in very narrow ranges for life to be possible. If
this is correct then there would be only one value, or a very narrow range of values, which would allow life to develop. If I've
misunderstood the ID argument I'm open to correction."
>
> I think you have it right, as far as Ross is concerned. However, there are several problems with his conception. The first is the notion
that the constants must be "fine-tuned" at all. We simply do not know in many cases if the values for this universe are the only possible
values, or if a range of values can be tolerated. All we can do is speculate; this is not something we can test using our current
technology. Another problem is that Ross assumes only carbon-water-based, DNA, protein, carbohydrate life is the right kind of life. Other
constant values that make us impossible may in fact make silicon-based life, or life based on magnetic polymers, or even pure energy life
much more likely. As such, the range of constant values that could produce "life" (any kind of life, not just our kind) might be much wider
than we currently assume. Another problem is that the values of the constants might change in a way that they cancel out any deleterious
effects and come to a new balance that would still make our kind of life possible. In other words, Ross changes one value, discovers that
life becomes impossible and then declares that all the values must be exactly like those of our universe in order for life to occur. In
reality, however, the values could all become very different from what they are now, but if the balance they still might make our kind of
life possible.
So would it be accurate to say that at present science is not able to
either confirm or deny the validity of the ID argument?
>
> "My understanding is that only those universes with just the right values for these physical constants could sustain life. Numerically,
this would be a vanishingly small percentage of all possible universes(assuming that my understanding of the ID argument is correct)."
>
> But again if we enlarge our definition of life, the range of possible value combinations that can sustain life might in fact be quite
large instead of "vanishingly small".
But at present science is unable to confirm or deny this possibility?
>
> "My understanding of the ID argument is that it holds that fine-tuning is necessary for any kind of life that science believes is possible.
Again, I'm open to correction."
>
> But again the number of possible value combinations that can produce life might, though fine-tuned, be large enough to insure that most
universes will contain some kind of life.
>
> "But unless the initial conditions in the universe were correct life could never begin. If life never begins it never gets the chance to
adapt."
>
> But the initial conditions might be broad enough to allow for a wide variety of different types of life to begin,
But if this type of life begins then it is already compatible and
doesn't need to adapt. This might just be a question of semantics but I
think the use of the word "adapt" in this context is imprecise.
>but one type (say our >kind) will eventually prove to be well-adapted
>enough to be the most common, and the most likely to produce
>intelligence. Change the values slightly and the same kinds of life
>might appear, but now a very different form of life (say raw energy life)
>eventually proves to be well-adapted enough to become the most common,
>and the most likely to produce intelligence.
>
> "Again, my understanding of the ID argument is that extremely little variation of the constants is possible."
>
> Yes, that is what ID claims, but as I have already pointed out this is probably not correct.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
>
Thanks Kevin, this helps. You've got me wondering now if there are any
published critiques of the ID argument that argue along these lines. And
is there anything published on any research into the question of what
kinds of life are possible and the conditions under which these kinds of
life would be able to exist?
Randy Bronson