RE: Fine tuning argument once again...

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Sat, 11 Sep 1999 22:53:06 -0700

If you want to discuss the "wonder of fine tuning", lets keep it outside the realm of science. The fine tuning argument looks at a situation and says "wow, how could this possibly have happened, it must have been a miracle". What is often forgotten is that a far more likely explanation for the "apparant fine tuning" is not that someone fine tuned the parameters but that since the parameters are as they are, we are here in the form we have.
To use the fine tuning argument as Stephen tries is just not warranted by any data.
----------
From: andrew[SMTP:amandell@jpusa.chi.il.us]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 10:25 AM
To: Pim van Meurs; Evolution Reflector
Subject: Re: Fine tuning argument once again...

Pim Van Meurs
What exactly do you object to in the wonder of "fine tuning"?
The way it is applied as a "proof" I would hope. Merely showing how odd and
glorious this whole place is doesn't seem to be out of place no matter the
state of your "naturalism":)

At 09:59 AM 9/11/99 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
>Here is a BBC article from a month ago, which mentions the detection of a
>...
>
>SJ: "Astronomers believe that in the past our own galaxy may have had an
>active black hole at its core. Although it is still there, it is not now
being
>fuelled by a giant accretion disk. Lucky for us. If it was, then the high-
>energy radiation from it might make life very difficult indeed."
>
>SJ : This yet more evidence for the fine-tuning design argument in respect
of life
>on Earth and against the SETI assumption that life in the universe is
>common.
>
>So you have established that life started on earth because the conditions
were right. Now what evidence is there that the conditions were made to be
right for life to start on earth? The 'fine tuning' design argument, like
so many design arguments is severely lacking in any supporting data.
>
>