The book by Barrow and Tipler is still the standard reference in this field.
Interestingly the authors quote a formula I published in the Physical
Review, which expresses the fine-structure-constant in terms of other
fundamental constants. Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: glenn morton <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 1:37 AM
Subject: RE: How Irreducibly Complex Systems Evolve. Data Behe must deal
with.
>
>> Glenn,
>>
>> Regarding the "Anthropic Principle", you may be interested in reading
>> an article in the November issue of "Discover" Magazine. It discusses
>> how the fundamental constants behind the universe are fine-tuned to
>> allow life to exist, and that if they change, the universe as we know
>> it and life itself would be impossible.
>
>I read this last week but there are better sources of this kind of
>information. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler and
>a 1993 seminar proceedings on the topic: F. Bertola and U. Curi, editors,
>The Anthropic Principle, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993
>
>
>>
>> The article explores the possibility that our universe is
>> one of a possibly infinite number of universes (a "multiverse"),
>> and ours just happens to have the right numbers--otherwise we
>> wouldn't be here. An atheist could use this kind of reasoning
>> to avoid thinking about whether or not there may really be a Creator.
>> Since we have no way to detect a parallel universe other than our own
>> (outside of the "Sliders" sci-fi show :) ), this involves a leap
>> of faith, just as it is to believe that someone intentionally
>> adjusted the numbers.
>
>The reason I don't think the multiverse option will work is because one is
>moving beyond science at this point. If we can observe something, it is
part
>of this universe. If we can't--it isn't. By definition we can't observe
>other universes so it is a concept that will forever remain outside of
>science. THus to avoid the religious implications of the anthropic
principle
>(as Rees does in that Discover article) one must escape to a natural
>religion which is outside of science. (I know Rees trys to say his view is
>'verifiable' but it really isn't.
>
>glenn
>
>see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>for lots of creation/evolution information
>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 10:08:41 EDT