Re: Weinberg ant the anthropic principle

From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@novagate.com)
Date: Thu Apr 27 2000 - 09:06:11 EDT

  • Next message: Inge Frette: "Gifford Conference"

    I see Anthropic Principles as answers to questions of the following sort:

    If the present state of the universe (with special focus on its diversity of
    both inanimate structures and life forms) is the outcome of formational
    processes involving only the formational capabilities of entities within the
    universe (that is, without occasional episodes of form-imposing
    interventions by any extra-natural agent), then what must be the character
    of the universe?

    Using one of my favorite bits of vocabulary, the answer contained within
    most APs is: The Universe must be equipped with a "robust formational
    economy." That is, the menu of the universe's formational capabilities must
    be sufficiently robust to actualize the full array of inanimate structures
    and life forms in the course of time. [Call this the "Robust Formational
    Economy Principle."]

    But this simply invites the question: How does a universe come to possess a
    robust formational economy? What is the source (or Source) of that
    astoundingly fruitful menu of formational capabilities?

    Anthropic Principles give no answer to this question.

    Naturalism has little to offer beyond, "Well, that's just how it is. It
    needs no source. Absolute Nothingness just happened to experience a
    fluctuation and this universe--complete with a robust formational economy
    adequate to form atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars, planets, cells,
    organisms and us--just happens to be the result. (See Peter Atkins' _The
    Creation_ for samples of this type of rhetoric)

    All persons who see the universe as a Creation, however, can draw from a far
    richer reservoir of answers regarding the Source of this universe, including
    all of its formational capabilities.

    That's why I am so often struck with an irony in the creation/evolution
    debate. Preachers of Naturalism presume that they have rightful ownership of
    the Robust Formational Economy Principle. Ironically, Episodic Creationists
    appear to grant that ownership and propose that the Creation is NOT gifted
    with a robust formational economy, and some of them spend their lives
    looking for empirical evidence that certain formational capabilities are
    MISSING from the Creation.

    But if God is the Source of the Creation's formational economy, why not have
    high expectations that it is robust--gapless--missing no formational
    capabilities needed to effect the Creator's will for the actualization of
    all kinds of inanimate structures and life forms in the course of time?

    In other words, Christians have a far greater right to ownership of
    Anthropic principles and the Robust Formational Economy Principle than do
    proponents of Naturalism. It's time to claim that and to stop letting the
    preachers of Naturalism get by with their shallow claims of ownership.

    That was one of my theses at the Waco symposium.

    Howard Van Till



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 27 2000 - 09:10:23 EDT