Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What constitutes Intelligent design?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 52 of 61 (461458)
03-25-2008 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Eclogite
03-25-2008 12:18 PM


Just Six Numbers
That is part of the active debate on this subject. Martin Rees The Astronomer Royal, for example, already considers the fine tuning of these constants remarkably unlikley. He uses this as evidence for the multiverse - a range of alternative universes of which ours is a rare fortuitous example in which life can emerge. However, I believe he acknowledges that an intelligent creator of a single universe is a plausible alternative.
Does Rees consider design to be plausible? I'm not so sure of that, so I dug out my copy of "Just Six Numbers". The most relevant passage I could find was this;
quote:
Others adduce the 'tuning' of the numbers as evidence for a beneficent creator, who formed the universe with the specific intention of creating us (or, less anthropomorphically, of permitting intricate complexities to unfold). This is in the tradition of William Paley and other advocates of the so-called 'argument from design' for God's existence. Variants of it are espoused by eminent scientist-theologians such as John Polkinghorne; he writes that the universe is "not 'just any old world' but it's special and finely tuned for life because it is the creation of a creator who wills that it should be so'.
That hardly seems like the way to describe an idea which one sees as plausible. The comparison to Paley is especially unflattering. Rees is a churchgoer, but only out of tradition and tribal loyalty. I doubt that he does consider design to be a plausible hypothesis. If I am wrong, please cite a quote to back up your assertion.
direction does not require guidance
Well you said it. It doesn't require guidance, so the design hypothesis is speculative and unnecessary.
As to the nub of your question - what values of these constants would constitute evidence - the existing values constitute provisional evidence for intelligent design, they simply do offer scientific proof.
Again, with no hard evidence about the first origins of the universe and in the presence of other strong theories (such as the many-universes hypothesis), the values of Rees' six numbers don't even provide evidence of anything much. They offer us an opportunity for speculation, but that is all.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Eclogite, posted 03-25-2008 12:18 PM Eclogite has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024