robert rogland wrote:
> Sorry, George, but I just don't follow your logic. Could you explain for me
> why, IF intelligent life hasn't evolved by natural processes, THEN these
> [astronomical data cited in support of the anthropic principle] are just
> coincidences. Your assertion seems like a non sequitur to me.
The significance of the "coincidences" - & the reason they're called
"anthropic" - is that if they didn't hold then intelligent life (i.e.,
anthropoi) wouldn't have been able to develop. The strengths of the strong &
weak interactions has to be such as to allow carbon to be produced in stellar
cores, the dimensionality of space has to be such as to allow there to be nerve
networks, the universe has to be old enough for there to be time for evolution,
&c. If we didn't evolve then the coincidences are just that. They don't have
any consequences. As arguments for a creator they'd be in the same category as
finding a circle in the digits of pi in Sagan's Contact.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 21 2002 - 12:29:31 EST