Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

In reply to Jack:
Sorry, no, I had not read the article that Jack provided. I simply
answered the question 'But isnt the fine tuning of the physical
constants of the universe, used as an example of specified complexity by
the ID folks? ' to the best of my ability.
I now see that William Lane Craig has dressed up fine tuning using
Dembski's language. But iin my opinion the fine tuning argument stands
without the Dembski-Craig packaging. I would not say that "Examining the
circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred, one finds that there is
no Theory of Everything which would render physically necessary the
values of all the constants and quantities, so they must be attributed
to sheer accident. , so they must be attributed to sheer accident. " I
would say that at the moment we have no Theory of Everything which would
render physically necessary the values of all the constants and
quantities --- period. Craig has made an unwarranted assumption near
the beginning of his argument in ascribing the situation to chance.
Don

jack syme wrote:

> Did you even read the article that I provided?
>
> From William Lane Craig:
>
> "Dembski outlines a ten-step Generic Chance Elimination Argument:
> 1.. One learns that some event has occurred.
>
> 2.. Examining the circumstances under which the event occurred, one
> finds that the event could only have been produced by a certain chance
> process (or processes).
>
> 3.. One identifies a pattern which characterizes the event.
>
> 4.. One calculates the probability of the event given the chance
> hypothesis.
>
> 5.. One determines what probabilistic resources were available for
> producing the event via the chance hypothesis.
>
> 6.. On the basis of the probabilistic resources, one calculates the
> probability of the event's occurring by chance once out of all the
> available opportunities to occur.
>
> 7.. One finds that the above probability is sufficiently small.
>
> 8.. One identifies a body of information which is independent of the
> event's occurrence.
>
> 9.. One determines that one can formulate the pattern referred to in
> step (3) on the basis of this body of independent information.
>
> 10.. One is warranted in inferring that the event did not occur by
> chance.
>
> This is a simplification of Dembski's analysis, which he develops and
> defends with painstaking rigor and detail.
>
> Dembski's analysis will be of interest to all persons who are
> concerned with detecting design, including forensic scientists,
> detectives, insurance fraud investigators, exposers of scientific data
> falsification, cryptographers, and SETI investigators. Intriguingly,
> it will also be of interest to natural theologians. For in
> contemporary cosmology the heated debate surrounding the fine-tuning
> of the universe and the so-called Anthropic Principle will be greatly
> clarified by Dembski's Law of Small Probability.
>
> Consider the application of the above Generic Chance Elimination
> Argument to the fine-tuning of the universe:
>
> 1.. One learns that the physical constants and quantities given in
> the Big Bang possess certain values.
>
> 2.. Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred,
> one finds that there is no Theory of Everything which would render
> physically necessary the values of all the constants and quantities,
> so they must be attributed to sheer accident.
>
> 3.. One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities are
> incomprehensibly fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent,
> carbon-based life.
>
> 4.. The probability of each value and of all the values together
> occurring by chance is vanishingly small.
>
> 5.. There is only one universe; it is illicit in the absence of
> evidence to multiply one's probabilistic resources (i.e., postulate a
> World Ensemble of universes) simply to avert the design inference.
>
> 6.. Given that the universe has occurred only once, the probability
> of the constants and quantities' all having the values they do remains
> vanishingly small.
>
> 7.. This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate
> chance.
>
> 8.. One has physical information concerning the necessary conditions
> for intelligent, carbon-based life (e.g., certain temperature range,
> existence of certain elements, certain gravitational and
> electro-magnetic forces, etc.).
>
> 9.. This information about the finely-tuned conditions requisite for
> a life- permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in
> step (3).
>
> 10.. One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and
> quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance.
>
> One is thus justified in inferring that the initial conditions of the
> universe are due to design."
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
> To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> Cc: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>;
> <dickfischer@verizon.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference
>
>
>> jack syme wrote:
>>
>>> But isnt the fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe,
>>> used as an example of specified complexity by the ID folks?
>>
>>
>> No. Specified complexity is something more specific than fine tuning.
>> Fine tuning (e.g. the anthropic principle) was around well before
>> Dembski introduced the concept of specified complexity. I have no
>> problems with fine tuning. I do have problems with specified
>> complexity in biological systems.
>> Don
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

-- 
Donald A. Nield
Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland 1142, NEW ZEALAND
ph  +64 9 3737599 x87908 
fax +64 9 3737468
Courier address: 70 Symonds Street, Room 235 or 305
d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/People/Staff/dnie003/
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.