January 2002: Re: Flawed anthro views of RTB (original) (raw)

Next message: Scott Tucker: "Re: [ASA]RE: Flawed anthro views of RTB"

SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/21/02 5:00:19 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> robert.rogland@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
>
>
>> But the anthropic principle can be maintained by those like myself
>> who believe that God created a universe fit for life and then
>> created the first life forms supernaturally.
>
> This position, which I agree is not as incoherent as some here have
> claimed, divides anthropic arguments into two categories:
> A) Making the universe "fit for life" such as making matter and
> organic molecules stable, having the Earth at the proper distance from
> the Sun, etc.
> B) Arguments that make the universe "fit for evolution" such as the
> Earth being old enough to give evolution time to happen. This second
> category does not make sense if used by anti-evolutionists.

This distinction is valid in principle but -
1. Ross conflates the two types of "coincidences,"
2. Some in category A. are of a type quite different from the
others. The distance of the earth from the sun is a property of just one
of a (probably) large number of planetary systems, unlike the strengths
of the strong & EM interactions, which are properties of the universe as
a whole.
3. If one is going to invoke supernatural creation of humans,
there's no reason not to invoke supernatural creation of carbon atoms,
so the nuclear properties allowing stellar synthesis of C-12 aren't
really needed even to make the universe "fit for life."
Again - I don't think that the way in which Ross uses the
anthropic coincidences is incoherent but it's a very weak argument in
comparison with an evolutionary one.

Shalom,

George

George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 22:57:16 EST