Intelligent Design

[Pixel42]

Science cannot answer why the constants are what they are. Science can say that all these constants are remarkably well balanced for life to evolve.

On the contrary, science says there is nothing at all remarkable about the constants being in the range they need to be for us to exist and observe the values.

So far many here are saying that while remarkable, it is what it is.

No that is not what many here are saying, it's what you persist in hearing because you are not listening to what is actually being said.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Can you think of any experiment or observation that would falsify your hypothesis?

Asking on behalf of Karl Popper

No. It is accepted that most hypotheses of what "caused" or "came before" the Big Bang are unlikely to be falsified.

One is left having to use "best fit" to available facts. Fine tuning is one available fact. The emergence of highly intelligent life-forms is another fact. On Earth, the balance of nature and it's beauty and functionality is another fact.

If one rejects anecdotal evidence for the existence of the supernatural, then one can use that stance to reject any hypothesis that invokes something other than "scientific" method.

 

[MikeG]

.........If one rejects anecdotal evidence for the existence of the supernatural, then one can use that stance to reject any hypothesis that invokes something other than "scientific" method.

Indeed so. However, one would need some knowledge of the scientific method first before one was in a position to reject anything on the basis of it (the scientific method).

 

[MikeG]

......the anti-deistic stance can be equated to "Without God, everything is permitted.".......

Straw alert. Straw alert.

 

[Dave Rogers]

With regard to the planets and water and localized fitness for life, such discussions are irrelevant to the "fact" that if the cosmological constant was slightly different, the galaxies and the planets probably would not have formed.

And intelligent magnetohydrodynamic persistent structures in the resulting plasma would be speculating over how, had the cosmological constant been slightly different, the matter in the universe would have collapsed into dense, rigid blocks that could not possibly support life as they knew it.

Dave

 

[PartSkeptic]

Lets go with the fine tuning / chances argument and apply it to something else.

Now, PartSkeptic, you will of course agree that if I drop a glass on a hard surface that it will shatter into many shards.
These shards will have seemingly random shapes that, if fitted together correctly will form a glass.
And the odds of all those shards forming into EXACTLY those shapes is astronomically low.
But, they have formed.

By your logic the universe is therefore fine-tuned to form exactly those shards and the breaking of the glass is guided by a cosmic intelligence, as the chance of them forming as they did randomly is just too low.

Now, if I drop a glass again, by your logic I should get the same shards.

Yet, if I do, I get a completely different, equally unlikely set of shards.


If your logic falls apart on something as simple as that, why do you feel you can apply it to life?

Science says that if all the initial conditions for an event are exactly the same, the same result will be obtained. Given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle this only applies to macroscopic events, and to do this with a glass breaking it almost impossible, in practice, to get everything exactly the same.

What the fine-tuning argument says that if the initial conditions are just right (a glass formed with the right internal stresses) and the glass is dropped just so, then the shards produced could be amazing shapes that would not otherwise be seen in gazillions of glass dropping experiments. That is what is "remarkable".

Pixel42 would say that no matter what shapes resulted they are unremarkable and droll and ordinary because if only one glass is ever dropped then there is nothing to compare it with. I disagree because if the shapes seem to be "designed" rather than a random shattering then one infers that the glass and the dropping were in fact "engineered".

 

[Pixel42]

What the fine-tuning argument says that if the initial conditions are just right (a glass formed with the right internal stresses) and the glass is dropped just so, then the shards produced could be amazing shapes that would not otherwise be seen in gazillions of glass dropping experiments. That is what is "remarkable".

Pixel42 would say that no matter what shapes resulted they are unremarkable and droll and ordinary because if only one glass is ever dropped then there is nothing to compare it with.

No, that is not my point at all.

Someone earlier posted that picture that looks like either a duck or a rabbit, depending on how you look at it. You are in the position of someone who can only see the duck. We can tell you that there is also a rabbit if you look at it a different way, but we can't help you any more than that.

 

[PartSkeptic]

And intelligent magnetohydrodynamic persistent structures in the resulting plasma would be speculating over how, had the cosmological constant been slightly different, the matter in the universe would have collapsed into dense, rigid blocks that could not possibly support life as they knew it.

Dave

Nice try.

Look at the sequence of the formation of the galaxies, stars and planets to form the elements, then the sequence of events to form a habitable planet that accumulates enough bio-diversity for human life to form, then the sequence of terra-forming to give us oil and coal. Then water and carbon is versatile enough to be able to form life and increase in complexity. Evolution would drive such life forms to survive better with intelligence.

You need to show at least some evidence that a swirling "hydrogen plasma" can "evolve" and have the minimum basic attributes of "life" - even if "engineered".

The sequence has to be "just right" to get human intelligence. Any random catastrophe can break the chain. In this regard we have gazillions of examples where the chain has not been "remarkable enough" to cause intelligent life forms. The fall back argument is then the law of large numbers saying humans are the result of at least one super-remarkable sequence.

And this does not involve any universal constant except to say any initial difference would not allow the formation of elements and the galaxies to follow the course they have.

 

[PartSkeptic]

No, that is not my point at all.

Someone earlier posted that picture that looks like either a duck or a rabbit, depending on how you look at it. You are in the position of someone who can only see the duck. We can tell you that there is also a rabbit if you look at it a different way, but we can't help you any more than that.

Funny, but that is my position. That you (and others) have fixed beliefs and cannot see other possibilities.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You need to show at least some evidence [...]

No. No, I don't. You are the one arguing from design. You are the one claiming that no other possible set of universal constants could have produced structures suitable to be described as 'life'. You, therefore, are the one who needs to support this claim with evidence.

At this point, no doubt, you'll say something along the lines of "But you're asking me to prove a negative." That is in fact true; but that's the problem with the reasoning behind your claim.

Dave

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The sequence has to be "just right" to get human intelligence.

I suppose. And it was.

But if you were an intelligent lizard or insect or silicon-based creature, you’d be marveling that “The sequence has to be "just right" to get lizard (or insect or silicon-based) intelligence.”

And be equally wrong in your thinking.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Straw alert. Straw alert.

Read the book by Julian Baggini entitled "Without God, is Everything Permitted."

He does a nice job. But he does a slick job of arguing that there is no God despite acknowledging that religion and the possible existence of God have contributed to "good" moral teachings. Ultimately he demonstrates that relative morality is actually no morality. He "hopes" that good is an intrinsic part of humans.

 

[Meadmaker]

When considering the "fine tuning" variation of the argument from design I think there's an important consideration that often leads people to error.

The various equations and formulas, and the constants that are used in those formulas, that we call "laws of nature" are just descriptions. They aren't causes. We observe and measure the universe, and we come up with these descriptions, and we express them as mathematical relationships that include constants such as the gravitational constant, or the speed of light, which is itself a consequence of two other constants, the magnetic and electric permeability of free space, and all those other constants that are found in our physics textbooks.

Because we have those numbers, we have a strong tendency to try and imagine what would happen if those numbers are different, but that is confusing cause and effect. The numbers are a description of the universe. If the universe were different, then we would need different equations that used different numbers. We can't just imagine tweaking the numbers and seeing what sort of universe there would be, because all of those numbers are as they are because the universe is as it is. If we have the atoms and particles and photons that we have, they are described by these numbers. If the numbers were different, then the universe wouldn't be described by them. Atoms wouldn't hold together. Matter and energy wouldn't interact as they do. The equations we use wouldn't be the same equations.

Because we use these numbers to describe the world, it is psychologically simple to imagine if the numbers were different, and we realize, in that case, that the universe simply wouldn't "work". At that point, we might begin to thank our lucky stars that those numbers are exactly what they are, and we might even be tempted to assign some sort of "probability" to those numbers being what they are, but such an exercise is meaningless. If the universe didn't work the way it did, the numbers and the equations that use them wouldn't be useful.

James Maxwell came up with a set of four equations that describe electromagnetism, and the elements in those four equations have elements that can be related to each other using two constants, for electric and magnetic permeability. What is the probability that those four equations would be useful to describe the universe? The question borders on the nonsensical. However, the "fine tuning" variation of the argument from design asks us what is the probability that those constants would be what they are. That question is equally nonsensical, but it doesn't "feel" quite as nonsensical.

We can't talk about probability in such cases. The question has no meaning. The equations and the constants therein are what they are because the universe is as it is. If the universe were different, there would be different equations, not just different constants.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Read the book by Julian Baggini entitled "Without God, is Everything Permitted."

In other words, you'll see MikeG's strawman and raise him an appeal to authority.

Dave

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Read the book by Julian Baggini entitled "Without God, is Everything Permitted."

No thanks.

But I think the fact that atheists are underrepresented in prison populations puts the lie to that thesis.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I suppose. And it was.

But if you were an intelligent lizard or insect or silicon-based creature, you’d be marveling that “The sequence has to be "just right" to get lizard (or insect or silicon-based) intelligence.”

And be equally wrong in your thinking.

A lizard (or any other creature) lacks all the attributes needed to evolve intelligence. Humans are supremely adaptable, versatile, able to use the environment. Lizards are able to survive and procreate and not much else

Silicon is very limited in chemical properties. Organic chemistry has a huge branch all to itself.

Do a thought experiment on the possibility that anything different from a carbon based human could evolve high intelligence and it would fail very quickly.

 

[PartSkeptic]

In other words, you'll see MikeG's strawman and raise him an appeal to authority.

Dave

No. It is a reference work.

He will get a well-written logical analysis of the subject that will make him better informed. He does not have to accept everything that is said. I did not. He can use his own intelligence to determine if the arguments have validity.

Clearly I feel that the trend away from a fear of the possibility of judgment in the afterlife may very well result in the situation that everything is permitted and society will tear itself apart.

In China, the strict rules against corruption and crime are enabling them to rise dramatically. If they relax to permit "Western capitalism" with it's lack of restraint then they may also have chaos.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Clearly I feel that the trend away from a fear of the possibility of judgment in the afterlife may very well result in the situation that everything is permitted and society will tear itself apart.

In China, the strict rules against corruption and crime are enabling them to rise dramatically. If they relax to permit "Western capitalism" with it's lack of restraint then they may also have chaos.

And yet it's Western capitalism, not the explicitly atheist Chinese communist system and its population that recently polled as 61% 'convinced atheist,' that's strongly informed by Christianity and its explicit promise of judgment in the afterlife. Strange.

Dave

 

[Fast Eddie B]

A lizard (or any other creature) lacks all the attributes needed to evolve intelligence.

Demonstrably untrue, in that humans and lizards share a common ancestor.

It just so happens that it was a mammalian branch that sprung from that common ancestor that ultimately resulted in human-level intelligence.

Are you opining that intelligence equal to ours was only possible in the path actually taken? That seems to require a lot of hubris.

 

[Pixel42]

Funny, but that is my position. That you (and others) have fixed beliefs and cannot see other possibilities.

It's not a matter of belief. You simply do not get my point. And as long as you assume that there is no point to get, you never will.