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