Re: Flawed anthro views of RTB

From: george murphy (
Date: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 22:58:28 EST

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

    > In a message dated 1/21/02 5:00:19 PM Mountain Standard Time,
    > 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.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

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