Reflectorites
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:10:17 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Here is an example of how a type of `design inference' made a major
>>contribution to science: ....
>>Hoyle predicted that there must be a previously undetected energy level in
>>the carbon-12 nucleus, at an energy that would resonate with the combined
>>energies, including kinetic energy, of its constituent parts, under the
>>conditions prevailing inside stars. He made a precise calculation of what
>>that energy level must be, and he cajoled Willy Fowler's somewhat
>>sceptical nuclear physics colleagues until they carried out experiments to
>>test his prediction. To the astonishment of everyone except Hoyle, the
>>measurements showed that carbon-12 has an energy level just 4 percent
>>above the calculated energy. ...
>>The remarkable nature of Hoyle's successful prediction cannot be
>>overemphasised. ...
>>Most anthropic arguments are made with the benefit of hindsight. We look
>>at the Universe, notice that it is close to flat, and say, "Oh yes, of course, it
>>must be that way, or we wouldn't be here to notice it." But Hoyle's
>>prediction is different, in a class of its own. It is a genuine scientific
>>prediction, tested and confirmed by subsequent experiments. ...
>>This combination of coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12,
>>just wrong in oxygen-16, is indeed remarkable. There is no better evidence
>>to support the argument that the Universe has been designed for our
>>benefit-tailor-made for man.
>>
>>(Gribbin J. & Rees M., "Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and
>>Anthropic Cosmology", Bantam Books: New York, 1989, pp.244-247)
[...]
RW>I fail to see how this is an example of a "genuine anthropic principle
>prediction." Hoyle noticed some property of nature--that carbon-12 is
>produced in stars--and gave an explanation of this property, from which he
>made a prediction. He didn't need the anthropic principle in order to make
>this prediction.
[...]
Note how it works. Richard (who is an atheist and therefore denies design
apriori) calls for evidence for design. Yet when evidence is submitted,
Richard say he fails to see it!
Hoyle's prediction was motivated by his belief in design (not the anthropic
principle as Gribbin and Rees claim, which Hoyle has elsewhere rejected as
a tautology). Hoylee concluded after it that "a superintellect has monkeyed
with physics, as well as chemistry and biology":
"...Hoyle considers the carbon-oxygen synthesis coincidence so
remarkable that it seems like a `put-up job'. Regarding the delicate
positioning of the nuclear resonances, he comments: 'If you wanted
to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar
nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and
your fixing would have to be just about where these levels are
actually found to be .... A commonsense interpretation of the facts
suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as
chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in nature'. (Hoyle F., 'The Universe: Some Past and
Present Reflections," 1982, p16) " (Davies P.C.W., "The
Accidental Universe," 1983, reprint, p.118)
Gribbin and Rees (who are non-theists) admit that Hoyle's prediction was
made in the teeth of his physicist colleagues' skepticism (so it was not
obvious that that was how it must be). They actually say "the remarkable
nature of Hoyle's successful prediction cannot be overemphasised" and that
"There is no better evidence to support the argument that the Universe has
been designed for our benefit-tailor-made for man."
As I said, in the nature of the case design inferences are just *inferences*.
They are not absolute proof. Those who want not to see it can. And that is
how it should be, to give atheists like Richard the freedom to disbelieve,
which I regard on Biblical grounds as *very* important.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 18:20:07 EDT