Intelligent Design

[Pixel42]

The link does not say what you think it says:

Yes it does.

As well as the multiverse counterargument, that paragraph also summarises (very briefly) the various other objections to the fine tuning argument. If it is not a valid argument then the fact that the multiverse hypothesis is an adequate response is irrelevant.

 

[Aridas]

The link does not say what you think it says:

"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, we are, by definition, in a hospitable universe.

"This 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."

In other words, the puddle analogy is an unsatisfactory explanation for why our universe is the way it is. The coincidences are too extreme. Part of the appeal of multiverse theory is it explains fine-tuning, which is a prima fascie problem

"Interesting hints of a Level II multiverse come from the observation that many constants of nature appear fine-tuned for life, having values in the narrow range allowing our existence (if they vary across the multiverse, we'll find ourselves in one of those places where we can exist, and there's no embarrassing fluke coincidence to explain)."
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

While I'll agree that the link doesn't particularly support Pixel42's specific quoted claim, your claim has quite distinct problems, too. For example, the puddle analogy isn't an explanation for why our universe is the way it is in the first place and both doesn't pretend to be and hasn't been used as such in this thread. Well, by any of the people pointing out that it is valid for what it actually addresses, at least, rather than the people who are trying to criticize how it's bad at addressing things that it was never intended to address. Also of note, emphasizing something about theories of everything that haven't been demonstrated to work isn't actually particularly useful or meaningful as an argument. You are correct that part of the appeal of multiverse theories is that they can serve as an answer to claims of fine-tuning, but that is not their basis or actual support.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

One of the things I have noticed from ID proponents is that they always quickly move the discussion into area's not covered by the actual 'theory', ie the formation of the universe or the existence of supernatural forces.
But ID only claims to be a theory regarding the evolution (not even origin) of life. And their claim is that there are area's in genetics that cannot be explained by natural processes.

So far each of these claims has been proven wrong. Maybe PartSkeptic has one?
And while PS is at it, maybe explain why a supernatural intelligence capable of interfering in genetics at a molecular level made so many glaring errors us simple minds can detect them?

 

[Aridas]

So far each of these claims has been proven wrong. Maybe PartSkeptic has one?
And while PS is at it, maybe explain why a supernatural intelligence capable of interfering in genetics at a molecular level made so many glaring errors us simple minds can detect them?

What errors? All genomes have been carefully designed, with no waste at all. Especially ameobas and their genomes that can be hundreds of times as large as human genomes. Those are some amazingly complex single celled organisms, yup. Oh, and broken vitamin creation processes in humans? Totally intended.

 

[MikeG]

What errors?.......

Trailing the nerves over the receptors at the back of the eye, would be a good place to start. How about the recurrent laryngeal nerve., with a 2 foot length to connect something 4 inches apart in humans, but a 12 or 14 foot journey to connect things 6 inches apart in giraffes. Wrapping the prostate around the urethra isn't such a great idea, either. There are hundreds of these examples.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What errors?

Well, for a start, faulty sarcasm detectors. Right, MikeG?

Dave

 

[MikeG]

Well, for a start, faulty sarcasm detectors. Right, MikeG?

Dave

.............always. I'm useless at this internet stuff. Useless. Must try harder.




..........or give up.

 

[Meadmaker]

There's a cleverly concealed fallacy of equivocation there. You're equivocating between Paley's blind watchmaker argument, which relates to the unlikelihood of self-organisation and the arising of complexity, with Dicke's argument from fine tuning as applied to the fundamental constants. The latter is a different argument,...

I have been calling the "fine tuning" argument a variant of the argument from design, but you are correct. It really is a completely different argument.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I have been calling the "fine tuning" argument a variant of the argument from design, but you are correct. It really is a completely different argument.

Is it?

It seems a small step from “The universe is fine tuned” to “Somebody or something did the tuning.”

Much like Intelligent Design implies a Designer, Fine Tuning implies a Tuner.

So it’s hardly surprising the two concepts get conflated.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Is it?

It seems a small step from “The universe is fine tuned” to “Somebody or something did the tuning.”

Much like Intelligent Design implies a Designer, Fine Tuning implies a Tuner.

So it’s hardly surprising the two concepts get conflated.

Actually, not really.

If the universe were fine tuned, there would be no need for intelligent design, as the universe would produce life as expected on it's own.

If intelligent design is needed to guide life down a certain path, the universe clearly was not fine-tuned for that type of life.

So IMO the concepts are actually mutually exclusive.

 

[abaddon]

Actually, not really.

If the universe were fine tuned, there would be no need for intelligent design, as the universe would produce life as expected on it's own.

If intelligent design is needed to guide life down a certain path, the universe clearly was not fine-tuned for that type of life.

So IMO the concepts are actually mutually exclusive.

Interesting take I had not seen before. And on the money, IMO.

My personal jury is out on the matter of the multiverse. Could be true, could be false. ID proponents et al. make a big deal out of claiming that us godless heathens accept the multiverse out of sheer denial of god. That is wrong. Provisionally, it appears that there may well be reason to think that it may be the case, but it is far from accepted or believed by anyone, even it's proponents.

ID, however, fails even without a multiverse.

 

[Pixel42]

My personal jury is out on the matter of the multiverse. Could be true, could be false.

Likewise, but I'm leaning slightly towards accepting the idea mostly because of precedent. We've gone from one land (no, there are lots more beyond the ocean) to one world (no, those wandering stars are other worlds) to one solar system (no, the fixed stars are other suns) to one galaxy (no, those tiny smudges are other galaxies) to one universe.

I'm not a betting woman, but if I was I know where I'd put my money.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is it?

It seems a small step from “The universe is fine tuned” to “Somebody or something did the tuning.”

Much like Intelligent Design implies a Designer, Fine Tuning implies a Tuner.

So it’s hardly surprising the two concepts get conflated.

Conflated, yes; but the multiverse theory isn't a particularly informative response to Paley's watchmaker, not least because Darwin already put that one to bed. The fine tuning argument doesn't relate to the spontaneous emergence of complexity in this universe; rather, it posits the supposition that the fundamental physical constants could have taken any of a range of different values and relationships, and notes that only a very small subset of those values would have led to the emergence of sufficiently large concentrations of matter in the presence of sufficiently large energy gradients to produce something in some way similar to what we observe as "life".

It's also worth noting, of course, that we have no observational evidence that the fundamental constants could have taken different values to those they take in this universe. In that respect, the argument from fine tuning is no more based on observation than the multiverse theory; both are entirely speculative. It's therefore a specious argument to claim that there's no evidence other than scientific speculation for the multiverse; there's equally no evidence other than scientific speculation in support of the fine tuning argument.

Dave

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Conflated, yes; but...

I chose the word "conflated" with care!

 

[Dave Rogers]

I chose the word "conflated" with care!

I thought so. I think it was a very good choice.

Dave

 

[Delvo]

ID only claims to be a theory regarding the evolution (not even origin) of life.

I've never seen any of them say anything like that.

And the design of life forms is part of the design of the universe. They're not two separate things at all; either none of it is by design, or all of it is.

 

[Meadmaker]

I chose the word "conflated" with care!

Indeed, and it was the correct word.

 

[Peregrinus]

What errors?

Any doctor can give you a list as long as your arm.

All genomes have been carefully designed, with no waste at all.

The evidence says otherwise on both counts.

Oh, and broken vitamin creation processes in humans? Totally intended.

Intended by what or whom? Intended towards what goal? And is not "broken" vitamin creation not a quite glaring error?

 

[Donn]

I've heard, here and there, that there may be (not yet good) evidence that the (fine) alpha constant changes over time.

I have no idea what that could mean. My Sci-Fi brain kicks-in and I picture vast "storms" raging through space that erase entire galaxies or create weird new ones. *

* I don't propose this is happening. To be sure.

If it is changing. Well. Tuning be on-going, yo.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes it does.

As well as the multiverse counterargument, that paragraph also summarises (very briefly) the various other objections to the fine tuning argument. If it is not a valid argument then the fact that the multiverse hypothesis is an adequate response is irrelevant.

lol.