RE: [asa] Anthropic Principle, "proof," and "explanations"

This is an interesting argument. If the "low probability" event is to have
any power to prove God according to ID or anthropic principle, it must equal
a "no probability event". Otherwise, naturalism can always claim a purely
naturalistic explanation. Doesn't evolution not only accept, but possibly
even predict low probability events? If not, we might observe evolution
happening on a much more rapid rate.
 
But what you also seem to be saying is that a fundamental theory which
explains all the constants would be on the other end of the scale and would
constitute better evidence of design. I'm not sure why this would be
(although I agree with the conclusion). When well-defined mathematical
formulas are derived to explain the action of gravity or other things,
naturalists don't seem to be convinced that a supernatural force is more
likely. It seems to be the other way around, that mathematical explanations
seem to indicate natural causes rather than supernatural design.
 
So low probability events are taken by naturalists as indicative of
semi-random, unguided natural processes; and fundamental theories are also
taken to indicate a naturalistic operation of the physical world. Isn't
this the core of the problem? Atheists are going to see _both_ as evidences
of no supernatural intervention, and theists are going to see the action of
God as either intervention, good design, or both. At heart, it comes down
to theological and philosophical predisposition, which I'm not sure is going
to be solved by science, even if we could do away with the warfare model.
Or should I say, the warfare model isn't likely to go away because of the
philosophical divide?
 
 
Jon Tandy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Heddle
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:19 PM
Cc: David Opderbeck; PvM; asa@calvin.edu; George Cooper; John Walley
Subject: Re: [asa] Anthropic Principle, "proof," and "explanations"

I'll just add, once again an argument that nobody seems to agree with. At
the moment, the constants are considered low probability--that is they seem
to have been taken from a random draw. In that sense, they would seem to
favor the multiverse view which predicts exactly that--an effectively random
draw. However, if a fundamental theory is uncovered that explains the values
of the constants, that would be a big win (but not proof) for design. So, to
beat the drum one more time, it is not the low probability universe (as we
now understand it to be) that is most favorable to design, but the unit
probability/inevitable universe with a fundamental theory. It cannot be more
elegant than the constants having their life-sensitive values built into the
fabric of spacetime. The IDists are always, in my opinion, setting up their
tent on the wrong end of the probability range.
 
David Heddle
Associate Professor of Physics &
The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 7 15:08:18 2007