Mark Frank on "fine tuning" argument

Perhaps the greatest argument against the proposition that the structure of the universe was designed with us in mind is the argument put forward by William Dembski.

According to his argument, the structure of the universe is such that many, many events since its creation -- the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, the development of irreducibly complex structures, the ensoulment of h. sapiens etc. -- which are required for us to be in our present state could not possibly have happened without the "finely tuned" laws of the universe having been abrogated.

However, these observations are compatible with the Multiple Designer Hypothesis. Whoever designed us clearly found the fundamental laws of the universe poorly-tuned for the life they wanted to create.

Since the vast majority of Intelligent Design supporters are really Creationists, I usally will give them the benefit of the fine-tuning argument as a given for the existence of an intelligent designer and then grill them on why the existence of an intelligent designer supports the existence of their God. At this point, they usually give up. Or, in the case of the real fundie nutjobs, they pull out "scientific proofs" in the Bible or Koran. At that point, you know there's no point in arguing further.

These so-called “fine tuning” arguments are just as silly as the thermodynamic arguments. They fall into the same category of misconceptions and misrepresentations derived from “it’s so improbable it can’t happen (hence creator or intelligent design)” arguments.

Just as they try to lay out the territory and conceptual framework for debate in every other area, the ID/Creationists are pulling the same shtick here. Just who are they to decide what specific combination of fundamental constants produces a universe with life? This is simply an assertion on their part. In point of fact, the ID/Creationists have no idea whatsoever what ranges of value and what combinations of variations in these values could lead to life. They are just throwing out crap to argue and make assertions they simply cannot back up.

Again, at the heart of the argument is the same fundamental misconception that what currently exists is the goal or only possible outcome of the evolution of life. It’s the same fallacy of the difference between the probability of a specific individual winning the lottery and someone winning the lottery.

These people have no imagination whatsoever. They take the same misconceptions and simply use them over and over to make up garbage arguments to leverage the coat tails of scientists.

What about their own problems with their deities? After a couple of centuries of sectarian warfare, killings in the names of deities, and all the inconsistencies in their holy books, and now their misrepresentations of science, what is the probability that any of them know what they are talking about? How can they possibly know which deity, if any, created anything?

Given their history along with their constant misrepresentations of science, I would suggest that the probability that they know anything about how life did or didn’t arise is much closer to zero than any probability they can come up with for evolution having occurred.

Thanks, Mark - that was an interesting and well-written article, and a good point. Since we have no idea as to the source or cause of these universal constants, we have no idea as to the range of "possible values" they might take, and thus can make no statement as to how probable or improbable is the "fine-tuning" we think we see.

Andrew Lee said: According to his argument, the structure of the universe is such that many, many events since its creation -- the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, the development of irreducibly complex structures, the ensoulment of h. sapiens etc. -- which are required for us to be in our present state could not possibly have happened without the "finely tuned" laws of the universe having been abrogated.

Somewhat similar to Jack's argument I have always envisioned that there are in fact a large number of solutions to the "universe" with all kinds of different combinations of constants being possible, we just happen to be looking at a particular one. In fact the different solutions might not even be connected numerically (i.e. you can't just slide from one to another by changing the values).

If the probability of the physical constants having the necessary values for life is 10^-n, and the probability of an intelligent being with the ability to create a universe and alter its physical laws (who has always existed, in some place other than space and time), is 10^-m, then surely m >>> n.

In any case fine-tuning arguments -- even if they were correct -- don't at all contradict evolution by natural selection. A designer who sets up the whole universe to achieve some goal might either intervene zillions of times later, or not intervene and just let evolution do the rest. William Dembski's most recent arguments are that information is not created by natural selection, but is already lying around and is just transferred into the organisms by natural selection. Even if these arguments were totally convincing they would leave natural selection as the mechanism for achieving adaptation, and push the designer's role back to setting up the initial conditions for the universe. This is hugely different from Dembski's original arguments, which tried to argue that natural selection could not build in adaptive information at all. Those arguments have been totally disproven.

Should we really be worried about the fine-tuning argument? If the fundamentalist churches accepted the fine-tuning argument, but also accepted evolution, this be a vastly superior state of affairs for biology. Further, I don't see that the fine-tuning argument is currently incompatible with science ... the current belief is indeed that the vast majority of settings of physical constants would not support life.

Peter Shro said: Should we really be worried about the fine-tuning argument? If the fundamentalist churches accepted the fine-tuning argument, but also accepted evolution, this be a vastly superior state of affairs for biology. Further, I don't see that the fine-tuning argument is currently incompatible with science ... the current belief is indeed that the vast majority of settings of physical constants would not support life.

iioo said:

Peter Shro said: Should we really be worried about the fine-tuning argument? If the fundamentalist churches accepted the fine-tuning argument, but also accepted evolution, this be a vastly superior state of affairs for biology. Further, I don't see that the fine-tuning argument is currently incompatible with science ... the current belief is indeed that the vast majority of settings of physical constants would not support life.

But if God fine-tuned the start of the universe why would he not adjust the DNA as it evolved? Why would he not be allowed to adjust the system once it started?

The issue I've always had with fine-tuning arguments is that, as is so often the case, positing a deity doesn't actually appear to explain anything. Whatever range of Universes is actually possible, an omnipotent deity would be capable of creating any of them. Therefore simply positing a deity doesn't help; we must posit a deity whose selection criteria for Universe-making happen to match our Universe.

In other words, the proposed explanation for a fine-tuned Universe is a fine-tuned deity, which is no explanation at all.

Jack Krebs said: Thanks, Mark - that was an interesting and well-written article, and a good point. Since we have no idea as to the source or cause of these universal constants, we have no idea as to the range of "possible values" they might take, and thus can make no statement as to how probable or improbable is the "fine-tuning" we think we see.

Another problem with the fine-tuning argument is that humans occupy a 'middling position' in terms of environmental requirements. There are critters that can exist in a wider range of environments, and critters that can exist in a much smaller range of environments. This makes it impossible to fashion a consistent argument that the universe was designed for humans.

For example: if you try to argue that humanity's success is evidence for fine-tuning, you are really arguing that the universe is designed for bacteria. OTOH if you try to argue that humanity's rarity is evidence for design (we must be special, because an entire universe was made solely for the production of a small place where we can dwell), you are really arguing that the universe was designed for deep-sea volcanic vent-dwellers.

Thus, even if you believe the statement "the universe was designed," there is no good reason to think "...for humans" belongs on the end of it.

MartinM said: The issue I've always had with fine-tuning arguments is that, as is so often the case, positing a deity doesn't actually appear to explain anything. Whatever range of Universes is actually possible, an omnipotent deity would be capable of creating any of them. Therefore simply positing a deity doesn't help; we must posit a deity whose selection criteria for Universe-making happen to match our Universe. In other words, the proposed explanation for a fine-tuned Universe is a fine-tuned deity, which is no explanation at all.

"Again, at the heart of the argument is the same fundamental misconception that what currently exists is the goal or only possible outcome of the evolution of life."

Exactly, every time you see a creotard struggling with statistics, you can bet your life that they do not understand the null hypothesis. All of their infinitesimal probabilities do not pertain to an undesigned universe or to evolution. Their small probabilities are an extremely crude estimate of the probability that if we could roll back time and start all the natural processes over again, that we would inevitably arrive to the exact same universe we experience now.

Since Mark Frank's essay seems to have invoked interest among PT's commenters, I'd like to mention that on Talk Reason site (see here ) there is a whole section titled Anthropic Principle which includes a number of essays by Drange, Klee, Circovic-Walker, Himma, Stenger, Jefferys, Ikeda-Jefferys, and myself, wherein the fine tuning argument (and other versions of the "Anthropic" reasoning) are debated.

"Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine."

- Rick, Casablanca

eric said: Another problem with the fine-tuning argument is that humans occupy a 'middling position' in terms of environmental requirements. There are critters that can exist in a wider range of environments, and critters that can exist in a much smaller range of environments. This makes it impossible to fashion a consistent argument that the universe was designed for humans. For example: if you try to argue that humanity's success is evidence for fine-tuning, you are really arguing that the universe is designed for bacteria. OTOH if you try to argue that humanity's rarity is evidence for design (we must be special, because an entire universe was made solely for the production of a small place where we can dwell), you are really arguing that the universe was designed for deep-sea volcanic vent-dwellers. Thus, even if you believe the statement "the universe was designed," there is no good reason to think "...for humans" belongs on the end of it.

Many of the "fine tuning" arguments commit the fallacy of tweaking only one constant at a time. That strategy is doomed to failure.

“Again, at the heart of the argument is the same fundamental misconception that what currently exists is the goal or only possible outcome of the evolution of life.”

Exactly. And the question is not just whether humans would evolve or not. The question is also whether any kind of life similar to the type we observe on earth could evolve. And it's even worse than that. The question is really whether any form of life at all could evolve, whether similar to what we know or not.

The fallacy is assuming that there is something special abpout humans, or even just about life as we know it in general. No matter what type of life evolves it would most likely think itself special, that doesn't mean it is.

So even arguing that a change in the universal constants would mean that no matter could exist still doesn't rule out the possibility of some other kind of life evolving. Of course it is impossible to determine whether any other type of life could evolve under different circumstances and making that assumption is only begging the question. So, all calculations of probability are based on fundamentally flawed assumptions and are thus worthless. I guess if you need to have an excuse to believe in God you will have to try harder.

Jim Anderson said: Many of the "fine tuning" arguments commit the fallacy of tweaking only one constant at a time. That strategy is doomed to failure.

That’s a slippery slope argument, and I am really uncomfortable with them. First, they are not in any way scientific, and if we start out using by non-scientific arguments, we’ll probably end up manufacturing our data. Second, you can argue pretty much anything you want using slippery slope arguments.

How about that slippery slope argument where observing beak lengths changes leads us to believe that land animals can evolve in to whales? Now that's a really slippery slope!

Bobby the stupid troll trolled: How about that slippery slope argument where observing beak lengths changes leads us to believe that land animals can evolve in to whales? Now that's a really slippery slope!

Stanton said: Pretending that we never went over explaining to you that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals repeatedly at length does not make your assertion true, Bobby. Pretending that we did not simply makes your malicious stupidity all the more painfully obvious.

Bobby the stupid troll trolled: How about that slippery slope argument where observing beak lengths changes leads us to believe that land animals can evolve in to whales? Now that's a really slippery slope!

Wasnt talking to you, your rudeness!

hoj said:

Stanton said: Pretending that we never went over explaining to you that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals repeatedly at length does not make your assertion true, Bobby. Pretending that we did not simply makes your malicious stupidity all the more painfully obvious.

Bobby the stupid troll trolled: How about that slippery slope argument where observing beak lengths changes leads us to believe that land animals can evolve in to whales? Now that's a really slippery slope!

Wasnt talking to you, your rudeness!

William Dembski’s most recent arguments are that information is not created by natural selection, but is already lying around and is just transferred into the organisms by natural selection.

— Joe Felsenstein

Mark,

This jerk is a known troll who has been banned by most other moderators here. This is the seventy second alias that it has used. It's claims are nonsensical and definately off-topic. It has slipped on the slippery slope and fallen on it's ass once again. Please remove all it's posts and all it's subsequent posts to the bathroom wall. Thank you.

DS said: Mark, This jerk is a known troll who has been banned by most other moderators here. This is the seventy second alias that it has used. It's claims are nonsensical and definately off-topic. It has slipped on the slippery slope and fallen on it's ass once again. Please remove all it's posts and all it's subsequent posts to the bathroom wall. Thank you.

The "fine tuning" argument isn't really different from the ancient First Cause argument. It doesn't do much explaining. Our current lack of information about something doesn't logically open the door for the "theory" that a supernatural agency is responsible.

As for the actual claim that the fundamental constants are "fine tuned," in the immortal words of Henny Youngman: "Compared to what?"

As for the actual claim that the fundamental constants are “fine tuned,” in the immortal words of Henny Youngman: “Compared to what?

compared to a random distribution.

DS said: Mark, This jerk is a known troll who has been banned by most other moderators here. This is the seventy second alias that it has used. It's claims are nonsensical and definately off-topic. It has slipped on the slippery slope and fallen on it's ass once again. Please remove all it's posts and all it's subsequent posts to the bathroom wall. Thank you.

Dear DS: Each time you wrote "it's" (which is shorthand for "it is") you apparently meant "its." Regarding your request to delete the comments by "hoj" (which are indeed laughable), I see no reason to do so - he(she) is very apt to show his/her combination of arrogance with ignorance, so any reader with a minimal amount of brains can see it through. I'll delete his/her comments only when (and if) he/she starts calling names and/or move off the topic. We don't want to resort to a censorship in the manner typical of ID blogs.

Mark P.,

The call is not for censorship, it for enforcement of the rule against posting under multiple names.

Take away his psychological hook and starve him to death.

Bobby: My Name is Legion ? I go by many aliases ?? It is a shame
Bobby is a straw troll when it comes to arguing here. Panda's Thumb needs a Quality Troll Selector (QTS)

It doesn't look like mark knows any physics, and a universe that "has us in mind", isn't necessarily "created *for* us" and I get really tired of continuously pointing this out to *both* sides of the debate, but it's much more likely that it would be the other way round, something like this, duh:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990

An extreme example is something called the space phase constant of the Big Bang which according to Roger Penrose (Penrose, 2001) has to be accurate to 1 in 101230 or the second law of thermodynamics would not be true and life would not be possible.

Say what?... lol

@ Romartus. I bet you'd never admit there's a "quality troll".

Reminds me of the free speech in the Soviet Union. Everything was allowed - except anti-Soviet slander. Just so happened any criticism, good or bad, was anti-Soviet slander.

Just like any reference to survival of the fittest (Ueberlebung des Staerksten) is anti-evolution slander.

Have fun.

If this is what Dembski is doing, it is little different from Philip Bruce Heywood’s theory that “superconduction plus the Sun, Earth, Moon gravitational system imparts information to electrons.”

— Mike Elzinga

Mark Perakh said: Dear DS: Each time you wrote "it's" (which is shorthand for "it is") you apparently meant "its." Regarding your request to delete the comments by "hoj" (which are indeed laughable), I see no reason to do so - he(she) is very apt to show his/her combination of arrogance with ignorance, so any reader with a minimal amount of brains can see it through. I'll delete his/her comments only when (and if) he/she starts calling names and/or move off the topic. We don't want to resort to a censorship in the manner typical of ID blogs.

For new lurkers who may not know it:

Some "pro-evos" have been banned from PT, and most "anti-evos" are welcome and never censored. Anyone who does not like PT's policies is free to go away and start his own blog and decide what's on or off topic, whom to ban and what comments to delete. When such a person chooses to stay, and use multiple names, it says more about them then about PT.

To "iioo": In fact, in some threads that I started previously on PT, I did remove comments by pro-evolution commenters when they resorted to an improper language.

Mark,

If you check the addresses used you will see that bobby has used at least three different aliases on this thread alone. You can certainly choose not to enforce the rules, that is your perogative. However, don't say you haven't been warned.

As far as being off-topic goes, no one was discussing beaks or whales and the two things are completely unrelated even to each other.

To DS: Generally speaking, rules have to be followed. However, in practical terms, we are at a disadvantage compared to trolls. They not only use various handles, they often also send comments from various addresses (as Bobby-Lilly did in the past). Overall, a determined troll almost always can overcome our defenses. To fight a troll, I need to verify his/her address each time, then to perform several actions to remove the comment, and this is a time-consuming and tedious task. Therefore, besides the general policy of avoiding unnecessary censorship, we have to resort to comments' removal only in a limited manner, thus avoiding spending on that unpleasant task too much of time and effort. Every member of the PT team has own work to do, besides policing the threads. Nevertheless, we are concerned with the trolls and are right now working on new ways to limit their destructive interference. Hopefully you'll see the results shortly.

Frank J said:

If this is what Dembski is doing, it is little different from Philip Bruce Heywood’s theory that “superconduction plus the Sun, Earth, Moon gravitational system imparts information to electrons.”

— Mike Elzinga

So that’s how those electrons got intelligent. ;-)

Thanks Mark. I appreciate your efforts.

reindeer386sx said:

Andrew Lee said: According to his argument, the structure of the universe is such that many, many events since its creation -- the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, the development of irreducibly complex structures, the ensoulment of h. sapiens etc. -- which are required for us to be in our present state could not possibly have happened without the "finely tuned" laws of the universe having been abrogated.

Did Dembski really make that argument? I think he left out Leprechauns and Bigfoot. He sounds like a pretty good "scientist". Yah.

It is hard to imagine a paper that misses the boat more than Frank's, unless it is one of Dembski's.

The fine-tuning argument, presently correctly, has nothing to do with small probabilities. Nothing. It has to do only with sensitivity. In fact, the higher the probability, the better it is for those who believe in "intelligent" fine tuning. After all, most natural explanations for fine tuning appeal to low probabilities. Low probability (constants appearing random) is just what the Cosmic Landscape or Cosmic Evolution suggests.

It would be the high probability (when combined with sensitivity) case that would be the best circumstantial evidence for design. A fundamental theory explaining the values of the constants--without a refutation of life's sensitivity to their values--ought to be enough to send cosmologists on a visit to a local holy man.

Frank's paper is worthless.

heddle wrote:
A fundamental theory explaining the values of the constants–without a refutation of life’s sensitivity to their values–ought to be enough to send cosmologists on a visit to a local holy man.

Unless the universe is Darwinian.

heddle said: It is hard to imagine a paper that misses the boat more than Frank's, unless it is one of Dembski's. The fine-tuning argument, presently correctly, has nothing to do with small probabilities. Nothing. It has to do only with sensitivity. In fact, the higher the probability, the better it is for those who believe in "intelligent" fine tuning. After all, most natural explanations for fine tuning appeal to low probabilities. Low probability (constants appearing random) is just what the Cosmic Landscape or Cosmic Evolution suggests. It would be the high probability (when combined with sensitivity) case that would be the best circumstantial evidence for design. A fundamental theory explaining the values of the constants--without a refutation of life's sensitivity to their values--ought to be enough to send cosmologists on a visit to a local holy man. Frank's paper is worthless.

eric said: LOL. You seem to be saying that a high probability event can only be explained by a miracle. Are you serious? Your counterargument leads to the reductio ad absurdum conclusion that a fully logically deductive universe (i.e. 100% probability that things had to turn out the way they did) proves God. When in fact a demonstration that the fundamental constants could not possibly be different would do just the opposite.

heddle said: It is hard to imagine a paper that misses the boat more than Frank's, unless it is one of Dembski's. The fine-tuning argument, presently correctly, has nothing to do with small probabilities. Nothing. It has to do only with sensitivity. In fact, the higher the probability, the better it is for those who believe in "intelligent" fine tuning. After all, most natural explanations for fine tuning appeal to low probabilities. Low probability (constants appearing random) is just what the Cosmic Landscape or Cosmic Evolution suggests. It would be the high probability (when combined with sensitivity) case that would be the best circumstantial evidence for design. A fundamental theory explaining the values of the constants--without a refutation of life's sensitivity to their values--ought to be enough to send cosmologists on a visit to a local holy man. Frank's paper is worthless.

It would be the high probability (when combined with sensitivity) case that would be the best circumstantial evidence for design.

— heddle

b) The constants have unit probability because they are explicable by a fundamental theory.

Mike Elzinga said:

It would be the high probability (when combined with sensitivity) case that would be the best circumstantial evidence for design.

— heddle

Your use of sensitivity is peculiar if you think it implies design. Lots of phenomena in the physical universe are sensitive to initial conditions. Higher sensitivity means only that slight variations in initial conditions produce more widely varying outcomes downstream in a chain of contingencies. None of those downstream outcomes are special in any way; they are just what fell out. The ID/Creationists have no idea what other possibilities might have fallen out had events in a long chain of contingencies been slightly different. If something else could look back over the chain and contemplate the sensitivity of its existence to initial conditions, it could also claim its own existence as evidence of design. It would also be making the same error. And if the outcomes at each step in the chain are more sensitive, the ranges of outcome at the end are simply wider. More of these possibilities might be able to claim they are special, but still the ID/Creationist knows absolutely nothing about what percentage of these outcomes would be able to make such claims. It’s still the fallacy of confusing the probability of a specified individual winning the lottery with the probability of someone winning the lottery. It’s the same foolishness of a single individual who is the sole survivor a huge catastrophe (such as a plane wreck in which everyone else was killed) claiming that his deity was looking out for him. Why doesn’t he ask why his deity killed everyone else?

My use of “sensitive” is straightforward, and without philosophical bias.

— heddle

If, for the sake of argument, life depends on some constant C having a value to within one part in a million, then life is sensitive to the value of C, period.

Mike Elzinga said:

My use of “sensitive” is straightforward, and without philosophical bias.

— heddle

It’s not clear what you mean by “without philosophical bias.” The word sensitivity has a quite specific meaning in science. Is that what you are claiming is “philosophical bias?”

If, for the sake of argument, life depends on some constant C having a value to within one part in a million, then life is sensitive to the value of C, period.

That is a pretty sloppy definition of sensitivity. And it doesn’t address what is meant by “life” being sensitive to the value(s) of fundamental constants or any other initial conditions. It appears that you are assuming that what currently exists as life as we know it on this planet is the only possible outcome that can be dignified by the word “life.” However, if you just look at all the life forms that exist and have existed on this planet, it is apparent that billions of forms can fall out from just the contingencies that have occurred on planet Earth alone. Who are the ID/Creationists to claim that other contingencies earlier in the chain (e.g., variations among the so-called fundamental constants) are unlikely to lead to anything that could be called life and even have sentience? What is the evidence for that? Your use of the word sensitivity suggests that you are using life on planet Earth as the main criterion for what it means. In other words, the less likely Earth life is produced by a variation in a value of a “constant”, the more “sensitive” life is to the variations in value. That’s confusing the definition of sensitivity with the definition of life.

That’s confusing the definition of sensitivity with the definition of life.

Sensitivity for carbon based life looks like this:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/instability.gif

And by 'many balance points', they are talking about the ecobalances that don't apply to "other possible life forms", which is why we don't find the next most plausible life-form that we've ever been able to imagine, (Silicon based life), even though the ratio of Carbon to Silicon is 10:1 in favor of silicon based life, ON EARTH.

Heddle wrote:

"... given that any kind of life requires the synthesis of heavy elements."

Prove it. What about beings composed entirely of energy? Don't you watch Star Trek?

"...then train your telescopes on the vast regions of the universe that contain only hydrogen and helium. They should be teeming with life."

Sorry, not good enough. What about invisibe beings?

Lack of imagination isn't proof of anything.

DS said: Heddle wrote: "... given that any kind of life requires the synthesis of heavy elements." Prove it. What about beings composed entirely of energy? Don't you watch Star Trek? "...then train your telescopes on the vast regions of the universe that contain only hydrogen and helium. They should be teeming with life." Sorry, not good enough. What about invisibe beings? Lack of imagination isn't proof of anything.

I truly don't know how to respond to such an argument.

If you think life could arise if stars hadn’t formed, synthesized heavy elements, and blasted those elements into space, then train your telescopes on the vast regions of the universe that contain only hydrogen and helium. They should be teeming with life.

— heddle

test, I replied to a post and included several supporting links that may have caused it to get hung up.

hoj said:

hoj said:

Stanton said: Pretending that we never went over explaining to you that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals repeatedly at length does not make your assertion true, Bobby. Pretending that we did not simply makes your malicious stupidity all the more painfully obvious.

Bobby the stupid troll trolled: How about that slippery slope argument where observing beak lengths changes leads us to believe that land animals can evolve in to whales? Now that's a really slippery slope!

Wasnt talking to you, your rudeness!

But I really hit a nerve didnt I? Address the slippery slope issue! Wow that really blows apart your arguments.

Dale Husband said: I certainly agree that we need better "trolls" (Critics of evolutionary theories). Most of those that come here make arguments here seem to suffer from delusions of grandure, since their claims don't even make a dent in the case for evolution. Evolution is not lacking in evidence, there are no known examples of anything in biology that requires an Intelligent Designer, and there are no known weakness in evolutionary theories at present. So why do Creationists bother?

DS, December 23, 2008 6:17 PM Heddle wrote: “… given that any kind of life requires the synthesis of heavy elements.” Prove it. What about beings composed entirely of energy? Don’t you watch Star Trek?

About the speculations of "fine tuning" of constants: in general, science needs a large set of data, from observations taken under a variety of conditions, to form conclusions about general principles about something. And we have only one set of fundamental constants available. So how can there be any way to verify an analysis the speculation of "tuning" of those constants?

Henry

Henry J said: About the speculations of "fine tuning" of constants: in general, science needs a large set of data, from observations taken under a variety of conditions, to form conclusions about general principles about something. And we have only one set of fundamental constants available. So how can there be any way to verify an analysis the speculation of "tuning" of those constants? Henry

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said: About the speculations of "fine tuning" of constants: in general, science needs a large set of data, from observations taken under a variety of conditions, to form conclusions about general principles about something. And we have only one set of fundamental constants available. So how can there be any way to verify an analysis the speculation of "tuning" of those constants? Henry

Emphasis added. Indeed. We haven’t had time to explore everything that might be possible from what we currently know. And we don’t have sufficient information in the form of boundary conditions and initial conditions, nor do we have the computational facilities to model anything this complicated. If we ever do get to the place where we understand how life emerges from the condensation of matter, and if we develop sufficiently powerful computers on which to model such emergent phenomena ab initio, then we could play around with the underlying “constants” much like Fred Adams did with his modeling of stars. Currently we have only a few toy models on computer that give some indications that very complex behavior can emerge from some very simple rules. Until then, we slog it out in the lab and in the field, and then we wait a generation or more for better insights. Blessed assurance is not for scientists; only for those ruled by sectarian terror.

Wow, and in the mean time, we just ignore the indicated bio-centric structure principle that can resolve the problem from first principles. What a copout.

In the mean time, I'll stick with heddle's challenge to define the structure of the universe via a fundamental theory that explains or explains-away the carbon-life relevance to the structure mechanism that is indicated.

Seriously, you guys must live in a different universe than Weinberg, Susskind, Bousso, Davies, Barrow, Carter... etc...

One where the tendency to deny plausible science is an acceptable as long as you throw something, anything, even imagined sci-fi bullshiot, at the fundies.

~

I REPEAT ------ CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE UNMODERATE MY REBUTTAL TO Mike Elzinga???

thanks

island said: test, I replied to a post and included several supporting links that may have caused it to get hung up.

There is no good reason, says Stenger, to "assume that there's only one kind of life possible" - we know far too little about life in our own universe, let alone "other" universes, to reach such a conclusion. Stenger denounces as "carbon chauvinism" the assumption that life requires carbon; other chemical elements, such as silicon, can also form molecules of considerable complexity. Indeed, Stenger ventures, it is "molecular chauvinism" to assume that molecules are required at all; in a universe with different properties, atomic nuclei or other structures might assemble in totally unfamiliar ways. -Vic, the ideologically motivated antifanatic

heddle said: I am not saying anything remotely close to "a high probability event can only be explained by a miracle." I am saying this: If life is indeed highly sensitive to the values of the constants then of the two possibilities: a) The constants are random, or effectively ransom, i.e., low probability. b) The constants have unit probability because they are explicable by a fundamental theory. That a) is very compatible with a natural, multiverse explanation, while b) the high probability case, means that habitability is built into the laws of nature. That would be a feather in the design cap.

eric said: Yes, you are. You are saying that a unit probability that the laws of nature allow for habitability is a feather in the cap of intelligent design. I'll go out on a limb and assume that by "feather in the design cap" you mean "lends support for the argument that an intelligence designed the universe." You don't think that implies miracle? I think your argument is ludicrous on two levels. First, if the constants can be derived from first principals then, to repeat my original point, this makes any intelligence unnecessary. Just as a designing intelligence is utterly unnecessary to arrive at B if the statements A->B and A are both true. You are insisting design would be strongly supported by a proof that no explanation beyond math is necessary to explain how things got the way they are. To which I say again: LOL. Second, your argument is ludicrous because its circular. You're defending the anthropic principle by simply restating it in different terms. The regular (cosmological) anthropic argument says: the chances of the fundamental constants attaining the values they have can best be explained by design. Mark Frank's reply is: the chances may not be as low as everyone thinks because it relies on arbitrary assumptons about range. In your post you countered with: yes, but the chances that the natural laws (on which the fundamental constants rest) would attain the relationships that they do can best be explained by design. Do you see how your counter is simply the same anthropic argument with the goalposts moved back?

Heddle wrote:

"If life really is sensitive to the values, ..."

THis is still an unproven assumption. All you have to support this assumption is lack of imagination. Once again, the question is not whether life as we know it could exist if the constants were different. The question is whether any type of life whatsoever could exist and we have no knowledge about that. Until we do, all cosmological fine tuning arguments are moot.

heddle said: Henry, Mike, others: One thing, no matter how many times I tread down this now utterly tiresome path, that I'll never get. Why is it that those who trivially dismiss fine-tuning as a general problem--because we only have one data set, or because we are being chauvinistic about carbon-based life, etc.--never ask themselves or at least never address why their simplistic dismissals are never invoked by actual scientists--especially scientists vehemently opposed to design? Even Stenger looks at fine-tuning as a real issue requiring a serious explanation. And obviously the multiverse folks see an enormous benefit (if not, in some cases, the raison d'être) of their theories the ability to explain the fine-tuning problem. Which you would say is, trivially, a non-problem. Why does Susskind take so much ink to explain how the cosmological fine-tuning means that it is either the multiverse or design? Is he just stupid? Why don't they all, like you guys, simply dismiss the question with simple sentences? Shouldn't you publish your arguments so that these (secular) scientists stop embarrassing themselves? In fact, why not write to Frank, the author of the essay which is the topic of this post, and say: you're working way too hard on a problem that has a trivial solution? I never understood that. Now don't bother answering--the question has become, for me, purely rhetorical. I have asked it a hundred times and always get the same, few, nonsensical answers--that I am appealing to authority, quote-mining, etc.

DS said: Heddle wrote: "If life really is sensitive to the values, ..." THis is still an unproven assumption. All you have to support this assumption is lack of imagination. Once again, the question is not whether life as we know it could exist if the constants were different. The question is whether any type of life whatsoever could exist and we have no knowledge about that. Until we do, all cosmological fine tuning arguments are moot.

“If life really is sensitive to the values, …” DS replied: THis is still an unproven assumption. All you have to support this assumption is lack of imagination.

heddle said: Gosh, can you comment on what I wrote I wrote clearly, that a fundamental theory of the constants is a feather in the design cap if and only if the problem of the sensitivity of life to the values of the constants remains unsolved. By omitting the condition for my statement, you are guilty of quote-mining.

If life really is sensitive to the values, and if the values are not free but determined by a fundamental theory--then habitability is built into the fabric of spacetime.

It’s so comforting to assume that life could not exist without stars and heavy elements, who am I to say that it could? God must have created this universe just to produce me. I'm special.

A wise man once said that the thing that you most want to be true is usually the thing that is least likely to be true.

eric said:

heddle said: Gosh, can you comment on what I wrote I wrote clearly, that a fundamental theory of the constants is a feather in the design cap if and only if the problem of the sensitivity of life to the values of the constants remains unsolved. By omitting the condition for my statement, you are guilty of quote-mining.

I didn't omit it. The IF statement is fully quoted in my 7:42am response. Go read it, its right there in front of your eyes. I only responded to your b) argument, not your a) argument, but this is not quote mining. I chose one of your points to respond to, others can and have responded to the possibility that constants are not deterministic. But since you seem very sensitive about that IF statement, I'll go through it again with this statement included. After adjusting for pedantry, Heddle's b) argument is as follows: IF life is highly sensitive to the values of the fundamental constants, and these constants have unit probability* because they are explicable by a fundamental theory, it means that habitability is built into the laws of nature, which would be a feather in the design cap. (*if they don't have unit value, you have argument a, which is not addressed here) There, is that better? Because both of my responses still apply. You are still claiming that the more deterministic the universe is, the better proof is for design. And you're still arguing circularly that a new form of the anthropic principle (incredulity about the origin of the laws of nature) can be used to shore up the problems in the older anthropic principle (incredulity about the origin of fundamental constants).

If life really is sensitive to the values, and if the values are not free but determined by a fundamental theory--then habitability is built into the fabric of spacetime.

Sure. But the (speculative) case where a habitable universe is the only possible outcome of a big bang does not provide stronger proof of design than the (speculative) case where a habitable universe is one of many possible outcomes. You are completely reversed in your thinking.

You are still claiming that the more deterministic the universe is, the better proof is for design.

Mike Elzinga said: These so-called “fine tuning” arguments are just as silly as the thermodynamic arguments. They fall into the same category of misconceptions and misrepresentations derived from “it’s so improbable it can’t happen (hence creator or intelligent design)” arguments. Again, at the heart of the argument is the same fundamental misconception that what currently exists is the goal or only possible outcome of the evolution of life. It’s the same fallacy of the difference between the probability of a specific individual winning the lottery and someone winning the lottery. These people have no imagination whatsoever. They take the same misconceptions and simply use them over and over to make up garbage arguments to leverage the coat tails of scientists.

Robin said:

Mike Elzinga said: These so-called “fine tuning” arguments are just as silly as the thermodynamic arguments. They fall into the same category of misconceptions and misrepresentations derived from “it’s so improbable it can’t happen (hence creator or intelligent design)” arguments. Again, at the heart of the argument is the same fundamental misconception that what currently exists is the goal or only possible outcome of the evolution of life. It’s the same fallacy of the difference between the probability of a specific individual winning the lottery and someone winning the lottery. These people have no imagination whatsoever. They take the same misconceptions and simply use them over and over to make up garbage arguments to leverage the coat tails of scientists.

I'm still not understanding the basis for the Anthropic Principle and Fine-tuning Arguments as I can't get past the issue Mike so eloquently described. How can such an argument be taken even remotely seriously unless one presumes that life (and specifically human life) was a goal? On what does such a presumption rest? Sure, we humans do indeed exist but so what? Even if a change of any one atom meant that humans (or even life in general) couldn't exist, how could there be any validity in presuming that such was the only possible universe? What am I missing here?

I'm still not understanding the basis for the Anthropic Principle and Fine-tuning Arguments as I can't get past the issue Mike so eloquently described. How can such an argument be taken even remotely seriously unless one presumes that life (and specifically human life) was a goal?

Information Storage, Yeah, that's the ticket.
Sigh...

heddle said: Once again quote-mine. You write:

You are still claiming that the more deterministic the universe is, the better proof is for design.

when I am saying no such thing. For the n'th time, I am saying: The more deterministic the universe is, assuming the observation of life's sensitivity holds, the better it is for the design argument, contrary to the IDer's axiom that low probability is better. (By the way, I never used the word "proof.")

2) If the constants are constrained by a fundamental theory to have the values that they have, and, again, assuming the observation of life's sensitivity to the constants is not demonstrated to be an illusion, what would be a naturalistic explanation for this cosmic good fortune?

chuck said: Information Storage, Yeah, that's the ticket. Sigh...

This is what I always say to people who try to refute the sensitivity argument with wild non-evidenced speculations about what is or isn't possible in a universe that expresses a great amount of continuity and laws that extend throughout:

Find life of any kind on any planet in any galaxy that exists outside of the Goldilocks zone and you will falsify the claim.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Habitable_zone-en.svg/491px-Habitable_zone-en.svg.png

Simple as that, you now have a testable, falsifiable means for disproving the assertion, and this includes Mars or Venus. So far, you're zero for all attempts, and you are sorely mistaken about who has to prove what to whom.

eric said:

heddle said: Once again quote-mine. You write:

You are still claiming that the more deterministic the universe is, the better proof is for design.

when I am saying no such thing. For the n'th time, I am saying: The more deterministic the universe is, assuming the observation of life's sensitivity holds, the better it is for the design argument, contrary to the IDer's axiom that low probability is better. (By the way, I never used the word "proof.")

You're merely quibbling. For the last time, I'm GRANTING your assumption that sensitivity matters and am arguing that you're STILL wrong. And if I forget to put an 'assuming sensitivity matters' caveat at the end of every single sentence I write, rest assured that I am granting you that caveat, not quotemining.

2) If the constants are constrained by a fundamental theory to have the values that they have, and, again, assuming the observation of life's sensitivity to the constants is not demonstrated to be an illusion, what would be a naturalistic explanation for this cosmic good fortune?

The point you seem to miss over and over again is that if the fundamental constants turn out to be determined, no fortune - good, great, or bad - is needed. I don't need "cosmic good fortune" to explain why black body radiation doesn't kill me: this is fully determined by the laws of QM. Similarly I wouldn't need "good fortune" to explain why the value of the gravitational coupling constant doesn't result in my death if were to turn out that this constant was fully determined by tomorrow's improved QM. Let's put this in terms of a dice rolling example. I've claimed to roll a die many times and come up with all 6's (values for constants). Lest you think I'm quote mining, I'll say that sensitivity is a question of whether 6's were really needed for life. Put that question aside for the moment and focus on two possible explanations for my claim to a long series of all-6 rolls. One - I cheated. I actually intentionally placed the dice 6-face up (this is analogous to design). Two - I did indeed actually roll (not design). Now lets consider determinism. If you find out tomorrow that the die I used has a 6 printed on every face (i.e. the values for the constants are completely determined and could not be anything other than what they are), does that make my claim to have rolled more likely? Yes, obviously. If every face of the die has a six on it, then no cheating - no design whatsoever and no cosmic good fortune - is necessary to explain how I rolled a series of 6s. And (repeating myself for the third time), if you then try and shift the question to "well what cosmic good fortune gave you a die with 6's on every side?" then you are simply using a different version of the anthropic principle to defend the original version of the anthropic principle.

heddle said:

Robin said: I'm still not understanding the basis for the Anthropic Principle and Fine-tuning Arguments as I can't get past the issue Mike so eloquently described. How can such an argument be taken even remotely seriously unless one presumes that life (and specifically human life) was a goal? On what does such a presumption rest? Sure, we humans do indeed exist but so what? Even if a change of any one atom meant that humans (or even life in general) couldn't exist, how could there be any validity in presuming that such was the only possible universe? What am I missing here?

Sigh. Because the argument says nothing about human life being the goal. It says any kind of complex life, with the modest assumption that any kind of complex life requires heavy elements for a rich enough chemistry to create large molecules for storing information.

island said: Robin said:

I'm still not understanding the basis for the Anthropic Principle and Fine-tuning Arguments as I can't get past the issue Mike so eloquently described. How can such an argument be taken even remotely seriously unless one presumes that life (and specifically human life) was a goal?

Maybe it was, speaking of empirically evidenced plausibilites: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990

My only question is, who’s to say that a universe must have ANY life and thus presume that ANY specific tuning is necessary.

heddle said: Now suppose that, after years of effort, a fundamental theory arises that says we must get all sixes, in any universe.

heddle said: Well chuck--do you have an example of complex life that does not have an information storage capacity? Do you have theories of complex life that do not require something similar to DNA? Do you have any plausibility arguments as to how complex life could exist with being able to store information using complex chemistry based heavy elements? Do you know how to make something like DNA out of just Hydrogen and Helium? Or are you just full of shit like your comment would suggest? Or perhaps you reacted like Pavlov's dog because I used the word information and you think I am making an ID argument, when I'm not?

chuck said:

heddle said: Well chuck--do you have an example of complex life that does not have an information storage capacity? Do you have theories of complex life that do not require something similar to DNA? Do you have any plausibility arguments as to how complex life could exist with being able to store information using complex chemistry based heavy elements? Do you know how to make something like DNA out of just Hydrogen and Helium? Or are you just full of shit like your comment would suggest? Or perhaps you reacted like Pavlov's dog because I used the word information and you think I am making an ID argument, when I'm not?

NOW you aren't arguing ID? Then what has your festering pile of non sequiturs been for?

heddle said: Robin,

My only question is, who’s to say that a universe must have ANY life and thus presume that ANY specific tuning is necessary.

That's your only question?

Then the answer is: nobody. Well, not me. I just happen, like many others, to be interested in questions related to how our universe turned out to be habitable. If that question doesn't interest you, that's certainly your privilege.

Robin said: I don't see how questions about how this universe turned out to be inhabitable have any validity. Such questions presume that there should be an alternative, when all there is to go on is that this universe is indeed inhabitable. This could certainly be fascinating (I suppose) from a philosphical standpoint, but from a scientific standpoint it has no value. It's like speculating on how God turned out to have a white beard - one first presumes there is a God and then presumes that such a God has a beard and then presumes that such a God has alternative beard colors and so on and so forth - resolutely ignoring that there's no reason to even presume God in the first place.

Why don’t they all, like you guys, simply dismiss the question with simple sentences? Shouldn’t you publish your arguments so that these (secular) scientists stop embarrassing themselves?

— heddle

Queue heddle to come in and argue that since Mike Elzinga is willing to examine one of the worms on the plate the whole pile could be pasta.

Vermicelli, maybe.

Robin said: I'm still not understanding the basis for the Anthropic Principle and Fine-tuning Arguments as I can't get past the issue Mike so eloquently described. How can such an argument be taken even remotely seriously unless one presumes that life (and specifically human life) was a goal? On what does such a presumption rest? Sure, we humans do indeed exist but so what? Even if a change of any one atom meant that humans (or even life in general) couldn't exist, how could there be any validity in presuming that such was the only possible universe? What am I missing here?

heddle: Henry, Mike, others: One thing, no matter how many times I tread down this now utterly tiresome path, that I’ll never get. Why is it that those who trivially dismiss fine-tuning as a general problem–because we only have one data set, or because we are being chauvinistic about carbon-based life, etc.–never ask themselves or at least never address why their simplistic dismissals are never invoked by actual scientists–especially scientists vehemently opposed to design? [...]

chuck, December 24, 2008 1:22 PM Queue heddle to come in and argue that since Mike Elzinga is willing to examine one of the worms on the plate the whole pile could be pasta.

Thank you everyone (Robin, Eric, et al) for once again revealing the utter vacuity in heddle's umm 'theory'.

Your succinct refutations should send him away, and offer all of us at the Thumb a few months respite; until he returns to once again state exactly the same arguments and move exactly the same goalposts all over the place to try and avoid seeing exactly the same problems in his faulty logic.

chupa said: Thank you everyone (Robin, Eric, et al) for once again revealing the utter vacuity in heddle's umm 'theory'. Your succinct refutations should send him away, and offer all of us at the Thumb a few months respite; until he returns to once again state exactly the same arguments and move exactly the same goalposts all over the place to try and avoid seeing exactly the same problems in his faulty logic.

chupa said: Thank you everyone (Robin, Eric, et al) for once again revealing the utter vacuity in heddle's umm 'theory'. Your succinct refutations should send him away, and offer all of us at the Thumb a few months respite; until he returns to once again state exactly the same arguments and move exactly the same goalposts all over the place to try and avoid seeing exactly the same problems in his faulty logic.

Why is it that those who trivially dismiss fine-tuning as a general problem–because we only have one data set, or because we are being chauvinistic about carbon-based life, etc.–never ask themselves or at least never address why their simplistic dismissals are never invoked by actual scientists–especially scientists vehemently opposed to design? […]

Mike Elzinga said: Each version of the car might be assumed to be “special” in some way, but that is just the error we are discussing. Each version is simply one out of an entire ensemble of cars that have complex “personalities”. Assigning some probability to one of them is meaningless unless there are some independent criteria for determining which one is “special”.

Robin said: This last paragraph in particular brings to mind the issue I have with the whole concept and that is given that there are so many theoretically possible versions of the universe, in what way is the anthropic principle (any of them) remotely useful? What does the exercise actually indicate for anyone? I just don't see it as having any value whatsoever.

I tend to find the entire question intractable and see its only value as a source of arch humor in the works of Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams.

— iml8

Deem as quoted in Frank's essay asserts that the electron/proton mass ratio has to be what it is to 1 part in 10^37. Since our measurements of this ratio are many orders of magnitude from this precision, does this assertion imply that there is some powerful theory of life which predicts a precise value? If I interpret the mass uncertainty of the electron as 1 in 10^37, and obtain its energetic equivalent using mc^2, then a rough application of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would suggest that it would take 2 billion years to get a measurement that precise on a single electron. Thus the entire universe has been around less than 10 times long enough to "test" the mass ratio to that precision. How many physical systems within the universe have been unperturbed for that long?

heddle said: Use the dice example this way. Suppose, as you stated, life requires all sixes. The situation at the moment is: the roll appears to be legitimate. That is, the hundred sixes appear to be a random 1 out of 100^6 occurrence.

Now suppose that, after years of effort, a fundamental theory arises that says we must get all sixes, in any universe. The arguments shift: A’. IDers: Habitability is built into the fabric of space time. God did it (elegantly). B’. Naturalists: We were lucky that that laws of nature dictate constants that also make the universe habitable. I stand by my claim that A’ is much stronger relative to B’ than the original A is to B. That is, the design argument should prefer the high probability solution.

What eric said.
And even worse, there is simply no logical connection between the probability of anything and proof of the existence of God.
It's all just wishful thinking.

No, I disagree. You’ve just repeated the Anthropic principle, but substituted “laws of nature” for “fundamental physical constants.” You’ve gone from, ‘wow, I find it incredibly improbable that this particular set of contants did arise’ to ‘wow, I find it incredibly improbable that this particular set of laws of nature did arise.’ Your argument is not stronger, its just a repeat.

— eric

eric said:

heddle said: Use the dice example this way. Suppose, as you stated, life requires all sixes. The situation at the moment is: the roll appears to be legitimate. That is, the hundred sixes appear to be a random 1 out of 100^6 occurrence.

Well, you're forgetting several things. 1 - we don't know if all 6's are necessary. There may be other winning combinations. The only reason I granted you the sensitivity assumption is that you kept complaining that I was quotemining you when I ignored it. But don't confuse my assenting with your assumption for the sake of argument, with agreement that its a good one. 2 - we don't know how many faces the dice have, or how many different values are represented on those faces. In terms of the dice analogy, this is Mark Frank's original point: maybe the dice faces are marked 5.999, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6.001. 3 - we don't know how many *independent* dice are involved in each roll. In the past 100 years many things thought to be independent in physics, chemistry, and biology have turned out not to be. It would not suprise anyone, I think, if some of the values of today's "fundamental" physical constants turn out to be derived from a smaller set of more fundamental laws or constants. This could drastically increase the odds. 4 - we don't know how many rolls were made (number of universes).

Now suppose that, after years of effort, a fundamental theory arises that says we must get all sixes, in any universe. The arguments shift: A’. IDers: Habitability is built into the fabric of space time. God did it (elegantly). B’. Naturalists: We were lucky that that laws of nature dictate constants that also make the universe habitable. I stand by my claim that A’ is much stronger relative to B’ than the original A is to B. That is, the design argument should prefer the high probability solution.

No, I disagree. You've just repeated the Anthropic principle, but substituted "laws of nature" for "fundamental physical constants." You've gone from, 'wow, I find it incredibly improbable that this particular set of contants did arise' to 'wow, I find it incredibly improbable that this particular set of laws of nature did arise.' Your argument is not stronger, its just a repeat.

Mike Elzinga said: The other forms of the Anthropic Principle (Participatory, Strong, Final, etc.) are even more restrictive.

heddle said: ... Scenario 2 (unit probability constants): There is a heretofore undiscovered theory of everything that predicts the constants. (The same in all universes, else we are back in scenario 1.) 2a: Naturalistic explanation: This is a problem—now it really does seem that we are lucky, and physics does not like “luck.” It prefers the Copernican Principle. 2b: Design explanation: God built habitability into the fabric of spacetime. You are right that for the design proponents it simply sweeps the supernatural design up a level. We can even agree, for the sake of argument, that their absolute argument is not strengthened (Although I would argue that even in an absolute sense the design argument is strengthened in scenario 2, in that more elegance is always preferred.) But here is my argument, in total. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the anthropic principle. My argument is limited to this: In a relative sense, the position of the design argument vice the naturalistic argument is strengthened in scenario 2. If you want to argue with me, address what I am really claiming. Do not extrapolate from it (unless it is a good and necessary consequence) distort it, or put into it assumptions I have not made only to attack those strawman assumptions. ...

chuck, Why would the existence of a God be less improbable than us having won the Universal Lottery? It just moves the improbability elsewhere. Is it Gods All The Way Down?

heddle said: Scenario 1 (low probability constants): The constants are a random draw and so appear to be utterly fortuitous. ... Scenario 2 (unit probability constants): There is a heretofore undiscovered theory of everything that predicts the constants. (The same in all universes, else we are back in scenario 1.) 2a: Naturalistic explanation: This is a problem—now it really does seem that we are lucky, and physics does not like “luck.” It prefers the Copernican Principle. 2b: Design explanation: God built habitability into the fabric of spacetime. You are right that for the design proponents it simply sweeps the supernatural design up a level. We can even agree, for the sake of argument, that their absolute argument is not strengthened (Although I would argue that even in an absolute sense the design argument is strengthened in scenario 2, in that more elegance is always preferred.) But here is my argument, in total. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the anthropic principle. My argument is limited to this: In a relative sense, the position of the design argument vice the naturalistic argument is strengthened in scenario 2.

Of course my point is that scenario two does not provide any kind of argument for design because a designer's existence is no less unlikely than luck having produced a universe we can live in.

So it does not improve the argument for design over and above scenario two, or any other scenario.

If you disagree then all you have to do is produce a calculation for the probability of the existence of a god to do the designing.

heddle said:

chuck, Why would the existence of a God be less improbable than us having won the Universal Lottery? It just moves the improbability elsewhere. Is it Gods All The Way Down?

It seems as if you are responding to me, but since I never said anything along the lines of: "God is less improbable than winning the Universal Lottery," whatever the hell that means, I'll not bother to answer. If your comment was actually directed at someone else, my bad.

Actually I like eric's argument even more, but I thought that had been pointed out to heddle several different ways already.

eric said:

heddle said: Scenario 1 (low probability constants): The constants are a random draw and so appear to be utterly fortuitous. ... Scenario 2 (unit probability constants): There is a heretofore undiscovered theory of everything that predicts the constants. (The same in all universes, else we are back in scenario 1.) 2a: Naturalistic explanation: This is a problem—now it really does seem that we are lucky, and physics does not like “luck.” It prefers the Copernican Principle. 2b: Design explanation: God built habitability into the fabric of spacetime. You are right that for the design proponents it simply sweeps the supernatural design up a level. We can even agree, for the sake of argument, that their absolute argument is not strengthened (Although I would argue that even in an absolute sense the design argument is strengthened in scenario 2, in that more elegance is always preferred.) But here is my argument, in total. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the anthropic principle. My argument is limited to this: In a relative sense, the position of the design argument vice the naturalistic argument is strengthened in scenario 2.

If that's your argument, then you just don't understand determinism (unit probability for constants). Design is not strengthened for a universe in which everything is deterministic because a deterministic universe has no need of anything "outside" of it to make it work. It is fully self-sufficient. For a deterministic universe, we would only need to know that a big bang happened. If physical laws and constants can be derived from that known fact, there is neither "luck" nor "design" needed to explain why the universe is habitable. In that case we know fact A (big bang happened), we know that A necessarily leads to B (the constants we have now), so no luck or design is needed to explain why B occurs.

If physical laws and constants can be derived from that known fact, there is neither “luck” nor “design” needed to explain why the universe is habitable. In that case we know fact A (big bang happened), we know that A necessarily leads to B (the constants we have now), so no luck or design is needed to explain why B occurs.

Chuck, Actually I like eric’s argument even more, but I thought that had been pointed out to heddle several different ways already.

Robin said:

heddle said:

chuck, Why would the existence of a God be less improbable than us having won the Universal Lottery? It just moves the improbability elsewhere. Is it Gods All The Way Down?

It seems as if you are responding to me, but since I never said anything along the lines of: "God is less improbable than winning the Universal Lottery," whatever the hell that means, I'll not bother to answer. If your comment was actually directed at someone else, my bad.

Actually, you do imply that you somehow think God is less improbable than winning the Universal Lottery. You imply such by saying that there are two alternatives in Scenerio 2 - Naturalist or God designed - and that according to you "In a relative sense, the position of the design argument vice the naturalistic argument is strengthened in scenario 2." The problem of course is that your claim that "God built habitability into the fabric of spacetime" is a relatively stronger argument than the naturalistic one has no supporting evidence. So all you are implying is that the ID argument is more probable than winning the Universal Lottery. Big whoop.

If two arguments (1b and 2b for example) are empty, how can one be said to be better than the other?

heddle said:

Robin said: Actually, you do imply that you somehow think God is less improbable than winning the Universal Lottery. You imply such by saying that there are two alternatives in Scenerio 2 - Naturalist or God designed - and that according to you "In a relative sense, the position of the design argument vice the naturalistic argument is strengthened in scenario 2." The problem of course is that your claim that "God built habitability into the fabric of spacetime" is a relatively stronger argument than the naturalistic one has no supporting evidence. So all you are implying is that the ID argument is more probable than winning the Universal Lottery. Big whoop.

I imply no such thing. I said in scenario 2 the design argument is strengthened in a relative sense. That 2b is stronger compared to 2a than 1b is to 1a. I did not say that it was the better argument. Maybe 2a is still far superior than 2b. I never said or implied one way or the other. I never said anything at all about what is more probable. And just because you want to couch my argument in those terms doesn't make it so.

You think admitting that there is a fine tuning “problem” is giving too much to the design camp, so you stick your heads in the sand. You argue that it is trivially wrong–when in fact world-class scientists who are not theists do not agree that it is a trivial problem, but one that needs a solution.

— heddle

Mike Elzinga said: The point is that we don’t know what other universes or chains of contingencies would have produced.

chuck said: If two arguments (1b and 2b for example) are empty, how can one be said to be better than the other?

History, as the saying goes, is not a controlled experiment. That applies to natural history as well. I could play both sides of this argument, if I thought it worth the time. However, the bottom line is that the actual practice of the sciences remains precisely the same no matter what answer is selected.

— iml8

Robin said:

heddle said:

Robin said: Actually, you do imply that you somehow think God is less improbable than winning the Universal Lottery. You imply such by saying that there are two alternatives in Scenerio 2 - Naturalist or God designed - and that according to you "In a relative sense, the position of the design argument vice the naturalistic argument is strengthened in scenario 2." The problem of course is that your claim that "God built habitability into the fabric of spacetime" is a relatively stronger argument than the naturalistic one has no supporting evidence. So all you are implying is that the ID argument is more probable than winning the Universal Lottery. Big whoop.

I imply no such thing. I said in scenario 2 the design argument is strengthened in a relative sense. That 2b is stronger compared to 2a than 1b is to 1a. I did not say that it was the better argument. Maybe 2a is still far superior than 2b. I never said or implied one way or the other. I never said anything at all about what is more probable. And just because you want to couch my argument in those terms doesn't make it so.

I didn't say anything about a "better argument". I didn't distort or change your comment in anyway; I quoted you directly and noted that you imply that God is somehow more probable than a naturalistic explanation by saying that 2b is somehow a stronger argument than 2a. My noting that your statement indicates that you think God is more probable than a naturalistic explanation doesn't imply that scenerio 2b is a "better argument", so I have no idea why you brought that up. I did not "couch your argument" in any terms other than those you used, so the only person you need quarrel with about the terms used is yourself. If you do not think that God designing habitability into the universe is a stronger argument than a naturalistic explanation under scenerio 2, then I have to ask why you are posting comments about such at all?

heddle said: I take it back--you do better as cheerleader.

chuck said:

heddle said: I take it back--you do better as cheerleader.

And my current theory about you is that you are a creationist trying to set up a quote mine in this thread. It's been repeatedly, and by several lines of reasoning, pointed out to you that scenarios 1b and 2b are valueless and therefore one can't be "stronger" than the other. If what you are talking about is simply which tactic creationists should use, well you're on your own on that one.

heddle said: There has been no "line of reasoning" to state that either 2a or 2b is valueless. All you can say for sure is that neither 2a nor 2b is a scientific argument.

heddle said:

Robin said: I didn't say anything about a "better argument". I didn't distort or change your comment in anyway; I quoted you directly and noted that you imply that God is somehow more probable than a naturalistic explanation by saying that 2b is somehow a stronger argument than 2a. My noting that your statement indicates that you think God is more probable than a naturalistic explanation doesn't imply that scenerio 2b is a "better argument", so I have no idea why you brought that up. I did not "couch your argument" in any terms other than those you used, so the only person you need quarrel with about the terms used is yourself. If you do not think that God designing habitability into the universe is a stronger argument than a naturalistic explanation under scenerio 2, then I have to ask why you are posting comments about such at all?

I did not imply any such thing. I never said that 2b was stronger than 2a. I said repeatedly, that, in effect, the design argument improves its relative position in scenario 2 as compared to scenario 1. That is all I said. Nothing more. That's it. You are indeed distorting my position. As for your last question--I have not revealed my position. I consider the fact that the design argument is strengthened in scenario 2 is interesting enough in its own right to talk about.

chuck said:

heddle said: There has been no "line of reasoning" to state that either 2a or 2b is valueless. All you can say for sure is that neither 2a nor 2b is a scientific argument.

A, Yes there has. Several of them. B, I thought we were talking about science and the real world. Or do you believe the two aren't connected. PS You'd be even more shocked at my beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't recognize a line of gibberish when I see it.

chuck said:

heddle said: I take it back--you do better as cheerleader.

And my current theory about you is that you are a creationist trying to set up a quote mine in this thread. It's been repeatedly, and by several lines of reasoning, pointed out to you that scenarios 1b and 2b are valueless and therefore one can't be "stronger" than the other. If what you are talking about is simply which tactic creationists should use, well you're on your own on that one.

Robin said:

heddle said:

Robin said: I didn't say anything about a "better argument". I didn't distort or change your comment in anyway; I quoted you directly and noted that you imply that God is somehow more probable than a naturalistic explanation by saying that 2b is somehow a stronger argument than 2a. My noting that your statement indicates that you think God is more probable than a naturalistic explanation doesn't imply that scenerio 2b is a "better argument", so I have no idea why you brought that up. I did not "couch your argument" in any terms other than those you used, so the only person you need quarrel with about the terms used is yourself. If you do not think that God designing habitability into the universe is a stronger argument than a naturalistic explanation under scenerio 2, then I have to ask why you are posting comments about such at all?

I did not imply any such thing. I never said that 2b was stronger than 2a. I said repeatedly, that, in effect, the design argument improves its relative position in scenario 2 as compared to scenario 1. That is all I said. Nothing more. That's it. You are indeed distorting my position. As for your last question--I have not revealed my position. I consider the fact that the design argument is strengthened in scenario 2 is interesting enough in its own right to talk about.

Unless you are claiming that the design argument is stronger than the naturalistic explanation in scenerio 2, whether "design argument improves its relative position in scenerio 2" compared to scenerio 1 is meaningless. In other words if in scenerio 1 a naturalistic explanation has a relative value of 8 and the design argument has a value of 1, observing that in scenerio 2 the design argument improves to 2 while the naturalistic explanation remains at 8 doesn't strike me as that interesting, but maybe others find it such. Regardless, in both cases the design argument remains worthless. This of course assumes that your analysis that there is some relative improvement of the design argument is accurate, but which really isn't all that important given the former observation. But hey...if that sort of analysis is your thing, have at it.

John Kwok said: Dear chuck, Your assessment of heddle isn't correct:

chuck said:

heddle said: I take it back--you do better as cheerleader.

And my current theory about you is that you are a creationist trying to set up a quote mine in this thread. It's been repeatedly, and by several lines of reasoning, pointed out to you that scenarios 1b and 2b are valueless and therefore one can't be "stronger" than the other. If what you are talking about is simply which tactic creationists should use, well you're on your own on that one.

He has done a fine job in his own right going after the Dishonesty Institute's pathetic band of mendacious intellectual pornographers, especially my "pal" Bill Dembski. If you need further details, may I suggest contacting Wesley Elsberry? John

heddle said:

John Kwok said: Dear chuck, Your assessment of heddle isn't correct:

chuck said:

heddle said: I take it back--you do better as cheerleader.

And my current theory about you is that you are a creationist trying to set up a quote mine in this thread. It's been repeatedly, and by several lines of reasoning, pointed out to you that scenarios 1b and 2b are valueless and therefore one can't be "stronger" than the other. If what you are talking about is simply which tactic creationists should use, well you're on your own on that one.

He has done a fine job in his own right going after the Dishonesty Institute's pathetic band of mendacious intellectual pornographers, especially my "pal" Bill Dembski. If you need further details, may I suggest contacting Wesley Elsberry? John

John, Thanks! I was feeling pretty lonely!

heddle said:

Robin said:

heddle said:

Robin said: I didn't say anything about a "better argument". I didn't distort or change your comment in anyway; I quoted you directly and noted that you imply that God is somehow more probable than a naturalistic explanation by saying that 2b is somehow a stronger argument than 2a. My noting that your statement indicates that you think God is more probable than a naturalistic explanation doesn't imply that scenerio 2b is a "better argument", so I have no idea why you brought that up. I did not "couch your argument" in any terms other than those you used, so the only person you need quarrel with about the terms used is yourself. If you do not think that God designing habitability into the universe is a stronger argument than a naturalistic explanation under scenerio 2, then I have to ask why you are posting comments about such at all?

I did not imply any such thing. I never said that 2b was stronger than 2a. I said repeatedly, that, in effect, the design argument improves its relative position in scenario 2 as compared to scenario 1. That is all I said. Nothing more. That's it. You are indeed distorting my position. As for your last question--I have not revealed my position. I consider the fact that the design argument is strengthened in scenario 2 is interesting enough in its own right to talk about.

Unless you are claiming that the design argument is stronger than the naturalistic explanation in scenerio 2, whether "design argument improves its relative position in scenerio 2" compared to scenerio 1 is meaningless. In other words if in scenerio 1 a naturalistic explanation has a relative value of 8 and the design argument has a value of 1, observing that in scenerio 2 the design argument improves to 2 while the naturalistic explanation remains at 8 doesn't strike me as that interesting, but maybe others find it such. Regardless, in both cases the design argument remains worthless. This of course assumes that your analysis that there is some relative improvement of the design argument is accurate, but which really isn't all that important given the former observation. But hey...if that sort of analysis is your thing, have at it.

It's not meaningless or uninteresting to me. I consider it very meaningful and interesting that the ID people argue their case on the wrong side of the probability scale. What I wonder is whether the same argument applies to biology--would the ID people be better off arguing the inevitability of life as opposed to the unlikelyhood? I don't know, because I know so little about biology, but I find that question interesting too.

Well heddle I'm glad to hear you are "one of the good guys."
Turns out my "quote mine" theory doesn't hold up, and I drop it readily.
I still think you are wrong. And that the question is somewhat like investigating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But heck, it's your time.

heddle said: You are missing the boat, because the the postulated fundamental law of scenario 2 is not determined.

In scenario 2, all that has happened is the determinism has been pushed back a level.

If a fundamental was discovered that predicted the constants, and if the sensitivity of life to those constants withstood challenge, would your response really be: "what's the big deal?"

I think almost all scientists of all stripes would be amazed at such a situation (scenario-2)

I've read Hugh Ross' books (and Paul Davies' for that matter) that present similar startling numbers of apparent "fine-tunedness".

I think the power of the position of argument for design does not come from one discipline, but from the combination of areas where materialism has not been able to give satisfying answers, just like materialistic evolution does not come from any one area, but a kind of compilation of circumstantial data (although many seem to argue that "proof" of microevolution is proof of the more general theory). And then there is always that thing about motive. Both sides, to me, seem to be struggling in the same strength but with different premises. There is enough on either side to give for their supporters a reason to keep on, and enough ammunition keeps coming forward to counter the opposing view.

To me, it comes down to what people believe. They either, for whatever reason, are of the opinion there is a designer, or there is not. We are either an accident, or we are planned. To the objective observer, both sides have points that are compelling. (This in itself, to me, seems a matter of design, based upon my own starting point.)

It irks me that any who seriously question materialistic evolution are automatically marginalized, and by that simple fact their status as a scientist is questioned. Let the dialogue continue, forever if need be.

It should be obvious that there is more going on than simple logic. Those who hold on to something that has great consequence in their eyes will not let go just because of apparent contradictions (Pascal's wager, etc.). And in America that battle line stretches out quite a ways, all the way from arguments on this point and evolution/creation to miracles, evident answers to prayer, the internal integrity of the Bible and its prophecies, and personal experience of God's speaking within, etc.

And, as someone once asked Dawkins, what if you are wrong? It is of great consequence where you lead those who listen to you.

Plus there is the moral question. It is proven that people who do not believe in a Creator statistically are more prone to steal, cheat, take advantage of others, etc. than those who do believe. I am not arguing that people need to believe just so we have a better society, so that belief should be engineered (as if it could be... and indeed I do not know how persons such as yourself could make use of the fact "believers" do live longer, healthier and happier lives) but I do find it curious that those who argue for materialism for pragmatic reasons ignore this.

john,

If anti-evolutionists actually had a compelling argument, that should be presenting it, rather than wasting their and everybody's time rehashing arguments that fall apart when examined by people who know the subject.

So why do they keep doing the latter rather than the former? Think about it.

Henry

Sorry, I mention Christ's resurrection, but to me that is the bottom line event of significance to me personally.

Sorry for a final comment: I find it curious that those who claim a non-designed universe are able to accept its existence even though that acceptance requires faith, as per Berkley's assertions. On what logical basis can anyone establish the existence of anything external? It is my own experience of the root of creation that provides me reason to accept that what appears to be external to me, for such direct knowing is possible (although it is not via what is measurable).

So maybe a scientist needs to learn to become a mystic before he can be truly human (or at least discover the nature of what he was designed for).

Finally. As Greisler said, I believe, science reduces and changes its own scope and nature if it declines to consider the possibility of design. If not by data that such a possibility can be considered, then by what means shall it be considered, as a question in the realm of possibility? In such a scenario the designer may not be accessible to scientific study, but what the designer leaves behind may be, and if, as Remine suggests, what is presented resists other possible explanations and channels the mind to a conclusion that is most reasonable, even if repugnant, then how noble is the scientific endeavor if it must reject that conclusion, even though it be the best and the "only man left standing"?

john said: Plus there is the moral question. It is proven that people who do not believe in a Creator statistically are more prone to steal, cheat, take advantage of others, etc. than those who do believe.

Sorry Henry.

I didn't see your reply.

Thank you.

I hope the straw men can be ferreted out. There are ridiculous things that have been argued by creationists. I am not arguing against evolution, actually.

I just offer the following from gerrycharlottephelps.com for the stats....
(just clipped out)

Are Conservatives More Honest Than Liberals? by Peter Schwiezer, the Dallas Examiner, on 6-2-08, at http://www.examiner.com/a-1419425~Peter_Schweizer__Conservatives_more_honest_than_liberals_.html

The headline may seem like a trick question — even a dangerous one — to ask during an election year. And notice, please, that I didn’t ask whether certain politicians are more honest than others. (Politicians are a different species altogether.) Yet there is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty.

Consider these results:

Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.

Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”

Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.

When the World Values Survey asked a similar question, the results were largely the same: Those who were very liberal were much more likely to say it was all right to get welfare benefits you didn’t deserve.

The World Values Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car.

Another survey by Barna Research found that political liberals were two and a half times more likely to say that they illegally download or trade music for free on the Internet.

A study by professors published in the American Taxation Association’s Journal of Legal Tax Research found conservative students took the issue of accounting scandals and tax evasion more seriously than their fellow liberal students. Those with a “liberal outlook” who “reject the idea of absolute truth” were more accepting of cheating at school, according to another study, involving 291 students and published in the Journal of Education for Business.

A study in the Journal of Business Ethics involving 392 college students found that stronger beliefs toward “conservatism” translated into “higher levels of ethical values.” And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between “political liberalism” and “lying in your own self-interest,” based on a study involving 156 adults.

Liberals were more willing to “let others take the blame” for their own ethical lapses, “copy a published article” and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of “cheating on an exam,” according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics.

Now, I’m not suggesting that all conservatives are honest and all liberals are untrustworthy. But clearly a gap exists in the data. Why? The quick answer might be that liberals are simply being more honest about their dishonesty.

However attractive this explanation might be for some, there is simply no basis for accepting this explanation. Validation studies, which attempt to figure out who misreports on academic surveys and why, has found no evidence that conservatives are less honest. Indeed, validation research indicates that Democrats tend to be less forthcoming than other groups.

The honesty gap is also not a result of “bad people” becoming liberals and “good people” becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective.

Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate “doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.”

During this political season, honesty is often in short supply. But at least we can improve things by accepting the idea that truth and honesty exist. As the late scholar Sidney Hook put it, “the easiest rationalization for the refusal to seek the truth is the denial that truth exists.”

Peter Schweizer is the author of “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less ... And Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals”

Of course, I tie liberalism liberally to anti-evolutionary materialism, simply because of the correlation in voting pattern.

Sorry... pro-evolutionary materialism

And as someone who visits prisons, I know a good many people "turn to God" while in prison, including people who had been agnostic or even atheistic.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic of this post...

Is it true that the "quantum foam" argument for the existence of our "just so" "clumpy" universe is due to the fact of such evidence of fine-tunedness?

In other words, is this what is driving the argument that there MUST be an infinite number of other universes out there, and we just happen to be in the lucky one that has all the variables just right for us to be here asking about it?

john said: Let the dialogue continue, forever if need be.

Anyway, if that is the case, I don't see why the alternative, the hypothesis of design, is just as acceptable. In fact, to me, it would seem more elegant.

A number of physicists, since the COBE was launched, have come to this conclusion, even though it sticks in the craws of their biologist colleagues.

Sorry. I didn't see your comment and mine got embedded in yours somehow.

OK. You paint with a broad brush, but suppose you are right for the majority of creationists (so-called). But you cannot throw out the possibility that out of the bunch of nincompoops (as you see them) there may be some real challenges to Darwinism as the total explanation for the existence of life on earth in all its forms and varieties.

Your attitude surprises me. I have read books by a number of very reasonable scientific minds that have challenged many tenets of materialistic evolutionary theory, and, as far as I know, their own challenges have remained unanswered.

So at least, if you wish to be a scientist, you must keep open to the possibility that your theory can be proven wrong, and a better one may possibly exist. Popper has shown that, if nothing else.

john said: I just offer the following from gerrycharlottephelps.com for the stats.... (just clipped out) Are Conservatives More Honest Than Liberals? by Peter Schwiezer, the Dallas Examiner, on 6-2-08, at http://www.examiner.com/a-1419425~Peter_Schweizer__Conservatives_more_honest_than_liberals_.html

I mean, perhaps I haven't encountered the obstruction to scientific progress engendered by such people as you have.

Maybe scientists (so-called, whatever that word has come to mean today) shouldn't have to waste their time listening to challenges that have already been dealt with. But the process of challenge is vital to good science. If I were you, I would be worried if you succeeded in shutting everyone up who did not agree with your cherished theory.

Your investment in it can outweigh your objectivity.

Of course, you are staking your life on it.

And Pascal was right. If I am wrong, I will just be pushing up daisies with everyone else. If you are wrong, however... you will be in the position to say "doh". (I don't say this with any smugness. Just an observation.) So the weight of surety would seem to need to be more established on your side. And science, as the means you have chosen to determine truth, demands you be ready to receive a challenge that may be fatal to your theory in hopes of finding a better one.

Well, you assert I am dishonest, that this is proven by my use of this article, which I explained in another comment as to why I used it. If you do not feel it is reasonable to believe most people with Darwin stickers on their cars are more likely to be lumped in the "liberal" category, and that among liberals in general the belief in a more fundamentalist view of the Bible is less likely to be found, then I will let a more objective observer decide whether or not the statistics bore any relevance to my previous comment.

I can assure you I came here to contribute a perspective. That is all.

Anyway. Take care. I'm done. You can argue you drove me off because I had no legs to stand on, but winning a debate on points (as you seem to count them) does not mean you have proven your side of an argument more true. That, I hope, is what really will guide people.

Don't ascribe motive. Believe others really do want to engage in meaningful dialogue. This kind of format doesn't allow for full reflection, but it has its value.

john said: OK. You paint with a broad brush, but suppose you are right for the majority of creationists (so-called).

john said: But you cannot throw out the possibility that out of the bunch of nincompoops (as you see them) there may be some real challenges to Darwinism as the total explanation for the existence of life on earth in all its forms and varieties.

john said: Your attitude surprises me. I have read books by a number of very reasonable scientific minds that have challenged many tenets of materialistic evolutionary theory, and, as far as I know, their own challenges have remained unanswered.

john said: So at least, if you wish to be a scientist, you must keep open to the possibility that your theory can be proven wrong, and a better one may possibly exist. Popper has shown that, if nothing else.

john said: Don't ascribe motive. Believe others really do want to engage in meaningful dialogue. This kind of format doesn't allow for full reflection, but it has its value.

john said: And Pascal was right. If I am wrong, I will just be pushing up daisies with everyone else. If you are wrong, however... you will be in the position to say "doh".

Well, I was actually trying to get at something by my questioning about the fine-tunedness of the universe...

But I think I have made one point... each side generally charges the other with the same kind of dishonesty.

I hope you would read books such as "Nature's Destiny" by Michael Denton or "The Biotic Message" by Remine, etc.

I would also suggest that, by definition, you would not accept anything offered by a "creationist" as evidence... simply because it is offered by a creationist.

I could say the same as "evidence" offered by the "evolutionist"... it does not meet my criteria as having the necessary degree of proof to sway me from my own perspective.

I will not say "Good riddance" to you. There is always value in dialogue.

Actually, I could give evidence. Evidence from my own experience. Evidence from the experience of others.

But regardless, it is a mystery why some find such evidence reasonable and thus enter into the "gate" that allows for similar experience (like eating a steak or something and then telling the other person it is good, and the other person says Prove It first).

Anyway, logic will only take someone so far, IF there is an actual place someone is to arrive at according to what I have discovered.

That is what it is really about, I think. If there is design, and if it is pointing us at something... but to you IF IF IF... what about this IF or that IF? Why is YOUR framework the RIGHT one?

I believe we do possess the ability to discover truth. That's all.

The scientist seems to relish and celebrate the PROCESS and fears where it may lead. (Kind of like Shel Silverstein's circle in the "Missing Piece")

But this is where the mystical begins and the scientific hits the wall. Is there anything on the other side? And if so, do you think it would really be impossible for those who really want to find it to not be allowed to?

The means are at our disposal. We are the instruments.

But the process of challenge is vital to good science. If I were you, I would be worried if you succeeded in shutting everyone up who did not agree with your cherished theory.

And Pascal was right. If I am wrong, I will just be pushing up daisies with everyone else. If you are wrong, however… you will be in the position to say “doh”.

And science, as the means you have chosen to determine truth, demands you be ready to receive a challenge that may be fatal to your theory in hopes of finding a better one.

Sorry, had to finish the pancakes.

I think Walter ReMine's suggestions are just as valid as Darwin's...
the idea of "survival of the fittest" has its allure, but so does the idea that upon inspection, there could be a resistance to that explanation (reasonably interpreted) as well as a resistance to the explanation of other possibilities, such as multiple designers.

To me, this is a theory that has predictability and testability and falsifiability just as much as Darwin's theory has. And, to me, it bears out where Darwin's theory has struggled (such as in areas of so-called embryologic recapitulation, so-called convergence, cladistics, etc.)

And I want to hear phantomreader say

"I am an accidental product of the universe"...

Come one, just proclaim: "I am an accident!"

Come on... I... am.. an... ack...si... (you can do it!)

And if I do confuse the question as to whether we have souls with biological evolution, I apologize. Most evolutionists that I know would argue the "soul" is merely a manifestation of biological processes that evolved over time.

But not me, even though I somewhat hold to evolution.

John writes... Actually, I could give evidence. Evidence from my own experience. Evidence from the experience of others.

It does seem that often when science thinks it has something "nailed," something comes along to upset the apple cart. Einstein over Newton, quantum mechanics over Einstein, dark energy over everything, and even the necessity of punctuated equilibria (and as far as I know, quite often fossils come forth that push dates back ever further for the presence of very complex systems, such as echo-location in bats, etc.) ... yet no one seriously questions the proposition of evolution.

By the way, have the "mutuation rate" predictions as to when things "split off" ever jived with the fossil evidence yet? Or is those discrepancies still being covered up? (sorry my conspiracy theory gullibility showing through there)...

I guess my sense of fairness is bothered when things are presented to our school kids as being all sewn up (and thus reason to forget about there being a God out there who, according to the Bible anyway, cares about them) when things are still pretty open to re-assessment.

OK. Anyway I have heard your arguments numerous times, as you have probably heard mine. I hope people would at least be able to recognize truth when it presents itself (including me). That, perhaps, is the best we could hope for all of us.

Re: Evidence

That is the conundrum, isn't it? Evidence of something before you agree to the conditions that enable the experience of that evidence? You want me to send you some kind of sample? There is one source. That is what this argument about design or no design is about, and that there is the message of "I AM HERE". To those who cannot see it, we who do wonder how we can point you to what the message is all about.

If you cannot recognize the in-your-face matter of design, and if that recognition is a step of the process, I cannot say much other than to try the experiment of reaching out to the one responsible for the design. If SETI has credibility, why would not this?

Berkeley was right, though. When it comes to ultimate reality, there is one logical means of certainty.

Anyway, of that I myself am sure, and wish the best for you.

john said: Einstein over Newton, quantum mechanics over Einstein ...

You cannot argue that Newton alone was sufficient after Einstein, or that Einstein alone was sufficient without the quantum. His photoelectric paper for which he won the Nobel prize was seminal, but the reality of the quantum and its Copenhagen interpretation (the fact there was something beyond one field) he could never accommodate.

I do not believe Darwin's theory explains as much as people think it does.

How about Rupert Sheldrake? I never thought much about it, but the more I hear, the more I wonder how much could be explained by his morphogenic fields.

For instance, people who speak in different dialects or foreign accents after certain brain trauma, etc.

There is another theory that has not yet been fully considered. And one that is truly a "proper" theory in the sense it is testable, falsifiable, has predictability, etc. And the testing that has been done so far is supportive. But nothing but a bunch of hoo hahs from the scientific community, of course, which is historically very resistant to change, even when confronted with data.

Just thought I'd throw that in. Who knows? But anyway.

John writes... Re: Evidence That is the conundrum, isn’t it?.... You want me to send you some kind of sample? .... There is one source. That is what this argument... is about, and that there is the message of “I AM HERE”. To those who cannot see it, we who do wonder how we can point you to what the message is all about.

john said: I do not believe Darwin's theory explains as much as people think it does.

john said: It does seem that often when science thinks it has something "nailed," something comes along to upset the apple cart.

... yet no one seriously questions the proposition of evolution.

iml8 said: Maybe Darwin was off base. What do I care? I have no emotional attachment to evo science. Whatever way the Universe works is fine by me. But this is what we've got. There's something better? Show the money, if the money's good there's no reason not to take it.

Science Avenger said: I'm with MrG, as I'm sure most people reading this are.

john said: I think Walter ReMine's suggestions are just as valid as Darwin's...

To me, this is a theory that has predictability and testability and falsifiability just as much as Darwin's theory has. And, to me, it bears out where Darwin's theory has struggled (such as in areas of so-called embryologic recapitulation, so-called convergence, cladistics, etc.)

And I want to hear phantomreader say "I am an accidental product of the universe"... Come one, just proclaim: "I am an accident!" Come on... I... am.. an... ack...si... (you can do it!)

I would also suggest that, by definition, you would not accept anything offered by a “creationist” as evidence… simply because it is offered by a creationist.

I do not believe Darwin’s theory explains as much as people think it does.

If you cannot recognize the in-your-face matter of design, and if that recognition is a step of the process, I cannot say much other than to try the experiment of reaching out to the one responsible for the design.

It does seem that often when science thinks it has something “nailed,” something comes along to upset the apple cart. Einstein over Newton, quantum mechanics over Einstein, dark energy over everything, and even the necessity of punctuated equilibria (and as far as I know, quite often fossils come forth that push dates back ever further for the presence of very complex systems, such as echo-location in bats, etc.) … yet no one seriously questions the proposition of evolution.

By the way, have the “mutuation rate” predictions as to when things “split off” ever jived with the fossil evidence yet?

I guess my sense of fairness is bothered when things are presented to our school kids as being all sewn up (and thus reason to forget about there being a God out there who, according to the Bible anyway, cares about them) when things are still pretty open to re-assessment.

Evidence of something before you agree to the conditions that enable the experience of that evidence?

If you cannot recognize the in-your-face matter of design, and if that recognition is a step of the process,

Berkeley was right, though. When it comes to ultimate reality, there is one logical means of certainty.

I do not believe Darwin’s theory explains as much as people think it does.

Henry,

Thank you.

rog

Thank you everyone for your considerateness.

We all have our starting points, and are all en route to our respective destinations. Along the way, we have to make some decisions regarding how we will live our life, what we will communicate to others as truth, how we will raise our children, and so on.

To the person who asked of Remine, I find his idea that physical existence is designed in such a way so as to resist purely materialistic explanation and any other explanation (such as multiple designers) a fascinating one. He goes through the various areas of "evidence" used for materialistic evolution to see whether there is actually some level at which the argument breaks down (providing resistance to that interpretation).

Anyway, I think this whole matter is one of predisposition, not one of reason. People on both sides of this debate have plenty to clutch at.

The Shroud of Turin (to one side disproven, to the other, vindicated)

The Mars "microfossils" (to one side, evidence, to the other, vital factor missing)

The "fine-tuned" universe (to the one side illusion per Susskind, to the other, proof beyond reasonable dispute)

The soft tissue/blood cells found in T. Rex femur (to the one side anomoly, to "young earth" creationists, a smoking gun)

The prayer studies (to the one side, disproven, to the other, even the statistical significance of things going AGAINST those prayed for has meaning)

The Paranormal/Inexplicable such as Edgar Cayce ESP, spontaneous combustion, Morgellons, psychics success in the solving crimes, etc. (ignored by the scientific community for the most part, considered with interest by those who believe that the scientific community studiously wears horse blinkers)

the benefits of one belief system vs. the other (atheistic/materialistic tout enlightenment and technological advancements to live happier, healthier and longer lives, while "believers" point to studies show statistically they actualy live happier, healthier and longer lives)

and so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby

each side playing its trump cards and shouting "ha!"

But there is, I believe something to being said to walking a mile in another person's moccasins, just to try to really grasp why they have a problem with some view. It may not, after all, simply be bigotry, or determined ignorance. (Personally, I began as a strong evolutionist, and then became a strong anti-evolutionist, and now I am neither.)

And even what others may call bigotry or intransgience has its roots in some kind of reason. When you really find those roots, maybe you can sympathize with those who appear, in your view, to be bound by them.

And then maybe you will find the patience to engage them in dialogue, and whatever either side has of value can profit the other.

The truth is, however, that most of us can only go so far in accommodating someone else we fundamentally disagree with, because most of us have our own assurance already as to what the "deal" really is, and don't want to "waste our time" in counterproductive wrangling.

So each side will continue to call the other blind.

This would be fine (if you don't talk about eternal destiny) as long as each camp has the freedom to pursue their way and to speak freely. It is when one camp gets political power and begins to call in government activity that infringes on the other that things get wrong.

And that is what I worry about. For either side. About either side.

And I know when I say "predisposition" and then later say even intransigience has its roots in some reason, this is contradictory. Sorry. So I must define "predisposition" as being based in some kind of reason as well. Which, I think it is. Predisposition is based on a rationale that took place perhaps at the moment we began to cope with this thing we call life.

Predispositions is why scientists check each others work.

When the results are confirmed by scientists of different religions, nationalities, ethnic groups, native language, etc., that greatly reduces the odds that somebody's predisposition messed up the reasoning.

Henry

The truth is, however, that most of us can only go so far in accommodating someone else we fundamentally disagree with, because most of us have our own assurance already as to what the “deal” really is, and don’t want to “waste our time” in counterproductive wrangling.

Maxwell Smart: "It's the old SCIENTIFIC PREDISPOSITION trick again!"

Ah yes, all our observations of the Moon and missions sent to that world were performed according to preconceived notions of what that world was like, and the results obtained were interpreted through the filter of similar predispostions.

Given these biases, it's no wonder that astronomers were too blinkered and blindered to realize that the Moon is actually made of green cheese.

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwinw.html

Ah yes, all our observations of the Moon and missions sent to that world were performed according to preconceived notions of what that world was like, and the results obtained were interpreted through the filter of similar predispostions.