Re: [asa] Bioanthropic Principle WAS Life Imperative

John,
I can suggest one reason why your question about seeing matters clearly
remains. What a person "discovers" is likely to remain in spite of
disproof. Recall that Hoyle held to steady state until his death, despite
the disproof by the 3K remanent radiation. It looks as though the
insistence of the late chief archeologist of Indonesia that the "hobbit"
was a diseased /Homo sapiens/ is similar. Or note Charles Sanders
Peirce's comment that, despite recognizing human fallibility, most will
insist that their view on THIS matter is true.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:52:05 -0500 "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com>
writes:
David,

If I understand you correctly I think I am in complete agreement with
you. I have pointed out before on this list that ID is inconsistent in
seeing the finely tuned laws of physics in the creation of the universe
as being the fingerprints of God but in biology they insist on divine
intervention in order for God to get any credit for it. I agree that a
fundamental theory or “bioanthropic principle” that leads to life in His
image is not only more consistent with how we believe He created the
universe, but it is the best possible apologetic and the most rational
and defensible as well.

That is the significance and importance to me of the staggering drunk’s
hallway and note that it is also in general agreement with a weak ID
principle. And to be honest when I upgraded from OEC to TE, I thought
that this was what I was getting and I also thought this would be a given
on this list.

As to Loren’s comment “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”, I think this is exactly
the right strategy but I agree they are arguing for the wrong goal, i.e.
intervention instead of embedded design.

This is my frustration. Why doesn’t ID see this and why doesn’t TE do
something about it? If this bioanthropic principle was developed and put
out there, it would be serve as the bridge we are looking for between ID
and TE and also possibly many atheists and agnostics as well.

Thanks

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Heddle
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 4:35 PM
To: Loren Haarsma
Cc: _American Sci Affil
Subject: 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 18:47:11 2007