Re: [asa] Life Imperative

By why wouldn't the high probability case (a fundamental theory) be a
stronger argument for divine intervention? A more elegant case for divine
intervention? Instead of God picking the right constants, he established the
correct laws that then produced the constants.

For example, if constant *C* has to be withing one part in 10^6:

a) No fundamental theory, low probability
    i) Multiverse: no problem, we have an effectively infinite number of
chances
   ii) ID: God picked the value

b) Fundamental theory (~unit probability, *C* has the correct value in any
universe)
   i) Multiverse: ??? Um, we were lucky
  ii) ID: God decreed the fundamental theory

Seems to me the second scenario makes the stronger case for divine
intervention.
On Nov 23, 2007 3:11 PM, Loren Haarsma <lhaarsma@calvin.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, David Heddle wrote:
>
> > Paul Davies has an interesting article in SA
> > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-aliens-among-us&print=true
> > ...
> > It seems to me that if life is a low probability event—that is, the fine
> > tune physical constants are extremely unlikely and biogenesis extremely
> > unlikely, then ID—unless it transforms into a bona fide science that
> makes
> > positive testable predictions, will be at a perpetual stalemate with
> another
> > toothless (in terms of testability) theory: multiple universes. Multiple
> > universe theories are perfectly compatible with life's improbability,
> with
> > the advantage that they make no appeal to the supernatural.
> >
> > Folks, ID is attempting to carve out an existence on the wrong end of
> the
> > probability range.
>
>
> I don't think that ID proponents are employing a wrong strategy, given
> their goals. Rather, ID proponents have chosen a name for themselves
> which doesn't accurately reflect their goals.
>
> If the goal of ID is to show that the universe is well-designed, then I
> agree with you that they are arguing the wrong end of the probability
> range. But if the goal of ID is to argue for divine intervention in
> biological history, then they are employing the right strategy.
>
> If it can be shown scientifically that life is a low-probability event
> (given known natural mechanisms), then there are several possible
> explanations: divine intervention, space aliens, as-yet-unknown natural
> processes, multiple universes, or we-just-got-lucky. As you say,
> empirical science cannot distinguish which one of those hypotheses is
> correct. However, it is possible to add other arguments and evidence,
> outside of science, to argue that one of those hypotheses is more
> reasonable than the others.
>
> That is ID's apologetic strategy and goal -- to use a combination
> of scientific and extra-scientific arguments to argue for divine
> intervention in biological history. It's unfortunate that they have
> chosen a name which doesn't accurately reflect that goal; however, it's
> understandable that they made that choice given the philosophical,
> theological and legal history leading up to it.
>
> Loren

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 23 16:35:57 2007