Creation vs. Evolution

[stonesfan129]

Evolution has been proven as scientific fact. Intelligent design has not.

 

[wfooshee]

We unquestionably live in a universe that is fine-tuned for life.

Cart before the horse, or if you prefer a different description, effect before cause.

The Universe is not "tuned for life." A ridiculously arrogant statement when you consider how little we know about any life anywhere in the Universe besides our own little local plot.

So maybe, "We unquestionably live on a planet that is fine-tuned for life." Except, no... same reversal of cause and effect. Life evolved fitting the conditions it found. Different conditions would have produced different life. Just look at the different kinds of life here and the places they live, some in environments completely hostile and deadly to other forms of life which thrive elsewhere. There is no tuning, there is adaptation and extinction. We are fortunate enough to have a ready supply of liquid water, a certain amount of heat, and specific gases in the atmosphere. It wasn't built for us, it existed and we became ("us" and "we" being all life, not just humans.)

 

[Dotini]

Cart before the horse, or if you prefer a different description, effect before cause.

The Universe is not "tuned for life." A ridiculously arrogant statement when you consider how little we know about any life anywhere in the Universe besides our own little local plot.

So maybe, "We unquestionably live on a planet that is fine-tuned for life." Except, no... same reversal of cause and effect. Life evolved fitting the conditions it found. Different conditions would have produced different life. Just look at the different kinds of life here and the places they live, some in environments completely hostile and deadly to other forms of life which thrive elsewhere. There is no tuning, there is adaptation and extinction. We are fortunate enough to have a ready supply of liquid water, a certain amount of heat, and specific gases in the atmosphere. It wasn't built for us, it existed and we became ("us" and "we" being all life, not just humans.)

Did you bother to watch the video I posted? You should, because then you would see the overwhelming evidence we live in an undeniably fine tuned universe, or world as you say. Really, it is not even controversial. But it does require the existence of a nearly infinite number of alternate universes.

By the way, @stonesfan129, evolution is completely compatible with a purpose tuned universe. Of course, evolution is incompatible with traditional religions. But that is not what I am talking about.

I'll post this video again for latecomers.

 

[Daz555]

We unquestionably live in a universe that is fine-tuned for life.

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the Universe will kill you.

 

[Touring Mars]

you would see the overwhelming evidence we live in an undeniably fine tuned universe

That depends on what you mean by 'fine tuned'.

There's a strong analogy here with Dawkins' 'Climbing Mount Improbable' explanation of evolution.

On the face of it, complex life is overwhelmingly unlikely and could not simply appear by random chance. Evolution theory, however, proposes an alternative route that takes the enormously unlikely leap from pre-life conditions to the complexity of the biological world and breaks it down into plausible steps and processes that make near-infinitely unlikely events possible.

Take, for example, the amino acid sequence of the human enzyme, Cytochrome C. Now look at the same protein in different animals. They are all very similar, but the vast majority are subtly different... but chimps and other great apes have exactly the same sequence as humans. There is no way this could have happened by random chance - and one will have a hard time explaining why an intelligent designer would go to all the bother of making millions of subtly different versions of cytochrome C but then distribute them to animals in a way that resembles exactly what common descent could produce. Of all the infinite options, why design life in such a way as to make it look like life has evolved?

The point is, of course, that the theory of common descent explains very simply how two different species can have the exact same cytochrome C sequence without having to invoke an intelligent designer, and without the requirement for an infinite number of different versions of cytochrome C to exist. What is seemingly impossibly unlikely (two different animals having the exact same protein sequence) came about via a pretty simple process.

Perhaps our entire universe is the result of a similar idea - there may not need be an infinite number of universes in order to explain how the universe that we are a part of came to have the properties it has; could it be that our universe is the result of a prior universe, and that the properties of our universe are almost identical yet subtly different? It's possible.

What that would imply is that rather than invoking either an intelligent agency or invoking the need for infinite universes in order to eventually happen upon one that is 'just right' for us (similar to Dawkins' analogy of complex life arising in one hugely unlikely event), the universe itself could be the result of a form of 'cosmic evolution'? In any case, given infinite time, there's no reason whatsoever to rule out the possibility of infinite universes, but I rather like the idea of cosmic evolution - and I wouldn't be surprised if that idea became testable in the not-too-distant future as well.

So, just as evolution theory can explain why there is no need to invoke the concept of 'fine-tuning' to explain how humans can arise from single-celled organisms, it may only be a matter of time until astronomy and cosmology can explain (at least to some extent) how a universe capable of sustaining life can arise without the need for fine-tuning, or, indeed, a fine-tuner.

 

[Danoff]

@Touring Mars 👍

Life only looks back and asks how it got here if it got here. That only happens on a planet capable of supporting evolution, and only in a universe capable of supporting evolution. In all other instances, where universes were unstable and collapsed, or rocks were too hot or cold to support life, nobody looked back and wondered how they got there.

 

[Rallywagon]

I watched the video Dot, and its about what I expected. "I dont have a good theory as to why things work, so clearly creator."
Sorry, but that doesnt satisfy my intellect, lacking as it may be. Creator my work for you as an answer, but I am not taken to such nonsense myself.

 

[wfooshee]

Did you bother to watch the video I posted? You should, because then you would see the overwhelming assumptions that we live in an undeniably fine tuned universe...

Edited your quote for accuracy. The video is a thought experiment, at best, and not really even that.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

@Touring Mars 👍

Life only looks back and asks how it got here if it got here. That only happens on a planet capable of supporting evolution, and only in a universe capable of supporting evolution. In all other instances, where universes were unstable and collapsed, or rocks were too hot or cold to support life, nobody looked back and wondered how they got there.

Life should do a better job of taking notes along the way.

 

[stonesfan129]

Did you bother to watch the video I posted? You should, because then you would see the overwhelming evidence we live in an undeniably fine tuned universe, or world as you say. Really, it is not even controversial. But it does require the existence of a nearly infinite number of alternate universes.

By the way, @stonesfan129, evolution is completely compatible with a purpose tuned universe. Of course, evolution is incompatible with traditional religions. But that is not what I am talking about.

I'll post this video again for latecomers.

Show me "God" then we'll talk.

 

[Dotini]

Show me "God" then we'll talk.

There is no God to be seen in the traditional sense. IF (big IF), the universe was created by a higher intelligence it would be discarnate, not consisting of matter but of consciousness.

 

[Danoff]

Life should do a better job of taking notes along the way.

Actually.... about that...

It does a pretty tidy job. I mean the fossil record is damned impressive when you really step back and think on what it represents. And also, light takes so long to travel through the expanse that we can see almost back to the origin of the universe itself if we just look at the right part of the sky. When you really ponder on it, the note-taking is extremely thorough.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Actually.... about that...

It does a pretty tidy job. I mean the fossil record is damned impressive when you really step back and think on what it represents. And also, light takes so long to travel through the expanse that we can see almost back to the origin of the universe itself if we just look at the right part of the sky. When you really ponder on it, the note-taking is extremely thorough.

I knew you were going to say this.

 

[BobK]

There was a pothole in the road, and after a rainstorm the pothole became filled with a puddle of water. This puddle somehow became self-aware and capable of somewhat logical thought. It pondered the matter of its existence and noted that the pothole it was in was exactly the right size for it; not a milliliter too big or too small. So the puddle came to the inescapable conclusion that the pothole was carefully fine-tuned for it, and this was clear evidence of a Divine Creator of potholes.

 

[Dotini]

There was a pothole in the road, and after a rainstorm the pothole became filled with a puddle of water. This puddle somehow became self-aware and capable of somewhat logical thought. It pondered the matter of its existence and noted that the pothole it was in was exactly the right size for it; not a milliliter too big or too small. So the puddle came to the inescapable conclusion that the pothole was carefully fine-tuned for it, and this was clear evidence of a Divine Creator of potholes.

The concept of fine-tuning of the universe is an old one in science. The Wikipedia entry well worth a read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
If members can break their favorite habit of dismissal and mockery as the goal against Dotini, then maybe you can have a decent discussion.

 

[TexRex]

If members can break their favorite habit of dismissal and mockery as the goal against Dotini, then maybe you can have a decent discussion.

Edit to add quote.

 

[Dotini]

Edit to add quote.

My assumption here is that I'm the most important member of the forum - more important to address that any actual subject matter. I guess I should be flattered!

 

[TexRex]

My assumption here is that I'm the most important member of the forum - more important to address that any actual subject matter. I guess I should be flattered!

What I find particularly humorous is the apparent "to disagree with me is to attack me" stance you so frequently take, and which is reflected in the text I quoted in my post above. This stance manifests in other, similar ways, such as the earlier [paraphrased] "you must not have watched the video I posted because you disagree with me" and [also paraphrased] "so many people are getting 'likes' while I'm not" from the fairly recent past. It seems you don't want discussion so much as for others to treat what you say as gospel.

 

[Rallywagon]

I think the laughable part is the woowoo you keep trying to pander to us as legit science.
Go watch a debate between Deepak Chopra and any of the 4 horsemen.

 

[Dotini]

I think the laughable part is the woowoo you keep trying to pander to us as legit science.
Go watch a debate between Deepak Chopra and any of the 4 horsemen.

Oh I think I make a happy balance between hard science and more speculative stuff. I intend to keep it up, as we learn sometimes and sometimes merely get entertained. Please deposit your quarter in the slot below.

 

[Famine]

Go watch a debate between Deepak Chopra and any of the 4 horsemen.

Yeah, I'm tapping out of that.

 

[TexRex]

Ha! Love it.

 

[Dotini]

For instance, this video is not woo at all, but science presented by a proper astrophysicist. His name is Matt O'Dowd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_O'Dowd_(astrophysicist)



The universe really is fine tuned for life, and the multiverse hypothesis allows us to interpret it as random and rule out God and religion.

 

[huskeR32]

For instance, this video is not woo at all, but science presented by a proper astrophysicist.

It's no more convincing than it was when you posted it previously on this very page.

The universe really is fine tuned for life

Maybe. This video doesn't even come close to establishing that fact, though.

and the multiverse hypothesis allows us to interpret it as random and rule out God and religion.

This isn't the complete list of possibilities that you want us to think it is.

 

[Dotini]

This isn't the complete list of possibilities that you want us to think it is.

Absolutely correct!! (But I do want us to think and talk about all of them.)
Some, maybe not all, of those are listed and VERY briefly considered here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#Possible_naturalistic_explanations

To summarize:

There are fine tuning arguments that are naturalistic.[31]:125 First, as mentioned in premise section the fine tuning might be an illusion: we don't know the true number of independent physical constants, which could be small and even reduce to one. And we don't know either the laws of the "potential universe factory", i.e. the range and statistical distribution ruling the "choice" for each constant (including our arbitrary choice of units and precise set of constants). Still, as modern cosmology developed various hypotheses not presuming hidden order have been proposed. One is an oscillatory universe or a multiverse, where fundamental physical constants are postulated to resolve themselves to random values in different iterations of reality.[32]:3–33 Under this hypothesis, separate parts of reality would have wildly different characteristics. In such scenarios, the appearance of fine-tuning is explained as a consequence of the weak anthropic principle and selection bias (specifically survivor bias) that only those universes with fundamental constants hospitable to life (such as the universe we observe) would have living beings emerge and evolve capable of contemplating the questions of origins and of fine-tuning. All other universes would go utterly unbeheld by any such beings.

Main article: Multiverse
The Multiverse hypothesis proposes the existence of many universes with different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life (see multiverse: anthropic principle). Because we are intelligent beings, it is unsurprising that we find ourselves in a hospitable universe if there is such a multiverse. The Multiverse hypothesis is therefore thought to provide an elegant explanation of the finding that we exist despite the required fine-tuning. (See [33] for a detailed discussion of the arguments for and against this suggested explanation.)

The multiverse idea has led to considerable research into the anthropic principle and has been of particular interest to particle physicists, because theories of everything do apparently generate large numbers of universes in which the physical constants vary widely. As yet, there is no evidence for the existence of a multiverse, but some versions of the theory do make predictions that some researchers studying M-theory and gravity leaks hope to see some evidence of soon.[34] Some multiverse theories are not falsifiable, thus scientists may be reluctant to call any multiverse theory "scientific". UNC-Chapel Hill professor Laura Mersini-Houghton claims that the WMAP cold spot may provide testable empirical evidence for a parallel universe,[35] although this claim was recently refuted as the WMAP cold spot was found to be nothing more than a statistical artifact.[36]Variants on this approach include Lee Smolin's notion of cosmological natural selection, the Ekpyrotic universe, and the Bubble universe theory.

Critics of the multiverse-related explanations argue that there is no independent evidence that other universes exist. Some criticize the inference from fine-tuning for life to a multiverse as fallacious,[37] whereas others defend it against that challenge.[38]

Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today.[39] According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the ontic existence of the Multiverse.[40]

One hypothesis is that the universe may have been designed by extra-universal aliens. Some believe this would solve the problem of how a designer or design team capable of fine-tuning the universe could come to exist.[41] Cosmologist Alan Guth believes humans will in time be able to generate new universes.[42] By implication previous intelligent entities may have generated our universe.[43] This idea leads to the possibility that the extra-universal designer/designers are themselves the product of an evolutionary process in their own universe, which must therefore itself be able to sustain life. However it also raises the question of where that universe came from, leading to an infinite regress.

The Designer Universe theory of John Gribbin suggests that the universe could have been made deliberately by an advanced civilization in another part of the Multiverse, and that this civilization may have been responsible for causing the Big Bang.[44]

As with theistic evolution, some individual scientists, theologians, and philosophers as well as certain religious groups argue that providence or creation are responsible for fine-tuning.

Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that random chance, applied to a single and sole universe, only raises the question as to why this universe could be so "lucky" as to have precise conditions that support life at least at some place (the Earth) and time (within millions of years of the present).


This fine-tuning of the universe is cited[46] by philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig as an evidence for the existence of God or some form of intelligencecapable of manipulating (or designing) the basic physics that governs the universe. Craig argues, however, "that the postulate of a divine Designer does not settle for us the religious question."

Philosopher and theologian Richard Swinburne reaches the design conclusion using Bayesian probability.[47]

Scientist and theologian Alister McGrath has pointed out that the fine-tuning of carbon is even responsible for nature's ability to tune itself to any degree.


Theoretical physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne has stated: "Anthropic fine tuning is too remarkable to be dismissed as just a happy accident."[50]

Proponents of intelligent design argue that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.[51]:5 The fine-tuned universe argument is a central premise or presented as given in many of the published works of prominent intelligent design proponents, such as William A. Dembski and Michael Behe.[52]:107

Also, so are many science vids, science articles and peer-reviewed science papers on fine-tuning. I invite members to find better ones than I so far have.

 

[huskeR32]

Absolutely correct!! (But I do want us to think and talk about all of them.)

Okay, I'll bite. For me, the biggest hurdle that "fine tuning" has to get past is the possibility of non-carbon-based life. Maybe when his precious 20 dials are tweaked just a bit, we get a universe where silicon-based life exists, or one where ammonia-based life exists. That doesn't make anything fine-tuned at all; it could be that in universes as vast as ours, some form of life is eventually going to find suitable conditions to live.

He attempts to wave this away by saying, essentially, "sure, non-carbon-based life is possible, but the types of exoplanets we're finding suggest that Earth itself is a very rare planet." So what? Non-carbon-based life might not need a planet like Earth at all. And carbon-based life could probably exist on planets that are less like Earth, and more like the planets we seem to be finding in more abundance. It was an extremely shallow attempt to wave the question away with almost nothing of substance actually said.

You have any videos or articles that make a better attempt at answering that?

 

[Danoff]

Also, so are many science vids, science articles and peer-reviewed science papers on fine-tuning. I invite members to find better ones than I so far have.

What exactly do you mean by fine tuning. Let's be specific here. Are we talking about Earth being in the "goldilocks" zone? Or are we talking constants of physics. Because the discussion of those is related, but different.

 

[Dotini]

Okay, I'll bite. For me, the biggest hurdle that "fine tuning" has to get past is the possibility of non-carbon-based life. Maybe when his precious 20 dials are tweaked just a bit, we get a universe where silicon-based life exists, or one where ammonia-based life exists. That doesn't make anything fine-tuned at all; it could be that in universes as vast as ours, some form of life is eventually going to find suitable conditions to live.

He attempts to wave this away by saying, essentially, "sure, non-carbon-based life is possible, but the types of exoplanets we're finding suggest that Earth itself is a very rare planet." So what? Non-carbon-based life might not need a planet like Earth at all. And carbon-based life could probably exist on planets that are less like Earth, and more like the planets we seem to be finding in more abundance. It was an extremely shallow attempt to wave the question away with almost nothing of substance actually said.

You have any videos or articles that make a better attempt at answering that?

No, but I promise I will look. If you looked too, that would be a good thing.

What exactly do you mean by fine tuning. Let's be specific here. Are we talking about Earth being in the "goldilocks" zone? Or are we talking constants of physics. Because the discussion of those is related, but different.

In this discussion, I would like to consider the following properties of the universe:
1. Ratio of the gravitational to the electric (Coulomb) force
2. Strength of nuclear force powering stars
3. Average density of matter in the universe
4. Ratio of ordinary matter to dark matter
5. Not too large strength of dark matter
6. Quantum clumpiness in the moments after the Big Bang
7. Just right conditions for formation of carbon and oxygen
8. Unusual properties of water compared to other liquids
9. Fact that the neutron is slightly heavier than the proton
10. Minute imbalance of matter over anti-matter

 

[TenEightyOne]

In this discussion, I would like to consider the following properties of the universe:
1. Ratio of the gravitational to the electric (Coulomb) force
2. Strength of nuclear force powering stars
3. Average density of matter in the universe
4. Ratio of ordinary matter to dark matter
5. Not too large strength of dark matter
6. Quantum clumpiness in the moments after the Big Bang
7. Just right conditions for formation of carbon and oxygen
8. Unusual properties of water compared to other liquids
9. Fact that the neutron is slightly heavier than the proton
10. Minute imbalance of matter over anti-matter

Well... go on then

 

[Danoff]

In this discussion, I would like to consider the following properties of the universe:
1. Ratio of the gravitational to the electric (Coulomb) force
2. Strength of nuclear force powering stars
3. Average density of matter in the universe
4. Ratio of ordinary matter to dark matter
5. Not too large strength of dark matter
6. Quantum clumpiness in the moments after the Big Bang
7. Just right conditions for formation of carbon and oxygen
8. Unusual properties of water compared to other liquids
9. Fact that the neutron is slightly heavier than the proton
10. Minute imbalance of matter over anti-matter

Ok, so I can pretty much sum the answer up in each of these cases. Let's pretend for a moment that you have a big bang which results in an unstable universe (ours is probably unstable too, but I mean unstable on a much shorter cosmological time scale). Or one which, for whatever reason, does not have the conditions for life to evolve within the time scale of the stability of that universe.

What would it look like?

A universe which experiences heat death long before ours? A universe which collapses upon itself quickly?

And what would we know of such a universe? Nothing. If something like that existed, or existed many times over, we would know nothing of it. Since we do not know what might cause a big bang event, what possible reason do we have to suppose that it happens one time in the entire history of all realities? A single time. We know that we are in a position to be aware of only one, our sample size is only one, but what other natural phenomenon do we know of that happens once and never again?

Life necessarily exists only in a universe that can support it. A "stable" universe is an inevitable state for us to find, for if it does not exist, we do not exist to find it.

Should we assume that only one universe exists? No, none of the evidence suggests that.
Should we assume that ours is the only possible stable universe? Absolutely not
Should we assume that our universe is perfectly tuned for life? No, I have not seen it proven that our universe could not be better suited to support life.
Should we assume that one universe is a simple answer than multiple? Not a chance. Imagine finding a new species of animal and suggesting that it is simpler to say that only one of them exists in the world.
Should we assume that no other configuration could support life? No.
Should we assume that we could have or would have any knowledge of any other universes that may have existed? No.

So you can see where the "fine tuning" argument implodes. We know nothing of the sort.