The argument from design tries to prove God's reality by
examining the universe. In the form given to it today by
those naming themselves "creation scientists" it earns the
fury of genuine scientists. I shall show why most reputable
thinkers consider it long dead and buried. But afterward I
plan to demonstrate that recent developments make it very
much alive, though not in any shape creation science would
welcome.
-- Leslie, J. (1985). "Modern Cosmology and the Creation of
Life," in <Evolution and Creation>, Ed. E. McMullin,
University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 91-120.
OK, now for a controversial question. Is it inconsistent on the
part of someone like Hugh Ross to be amazed at the fine tuning
required for the precipitation of particles and force fields in
the early moments of the Big Bang, the formation of stars and the
evolution of galaxies, the spontaneous formation of carbon within
those stars etc. etc. and then draw a line in the sand when it
comes to chemical and biological evolution? This is what Leslie
is saying, of course. The fine tuning that has been observed is
a fine tuning of natural laws which allow for the evolution of
intelligent observers according to those natural laws.
>If evolutionists admit design, then our Designer must
>be considered a reasonable possibility. If they opt for the latter, they've
>just moved their fudge factor to a different arena where it's more difficult
>to show an "extraordinary coincidence" occured. Presumably one could show
>that a universe with law-like organizational principles is extremely less
>probable than other possible universes without such principles. However,
>it's very difficult to discuss the probability of other "possible universes"
>when our only experience is with the one we live in. :-)
Yes, this is one of the problems of the many worlds view. The disjoint
universes must be more than just "possible universes", they must actually
exist. Further, they must not only exist, they must be *unobservable* by
definition :-). From this we encounter problems with Occam's razor.
The many worlds view requires a vast (but not necessarily infinite) number
of universes, all of which are undetectable, in order to explain the
regularities of just one.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================