Raw Story: Four states considering laws that challenge the teaching of evolution

[Jumbo]

:secret: none of this confirms evolution to be a fact

I love you, but in my perfect world people who play "evolution is just a theory" card have their tongue and fingers removed and are sat next to daily Fox News viewers who had the same procedure.

[The Evil Genius]

I love you, but in my perfect world people who play "evolution is just a theory" card have their tongue and fingers removed and are sat next to daily Fox News viewers who had the same procedure.

Nor do they understand the usage of the word, theory.

[PeterMP]

At no point did i state that the theories being discussed were developed by athiests. I merely gave an example of onepseudoscientific theory used by some athiests to support a certain position.

Here's your previous post:

when many athiests do the same thing. They ignore compelling evidence and make up completely baseless theories in an attempt to "explain away" compelling evidence of design within life. In doing so, they create and perpetuate pseudo-science just as much, if not moreso, than the those on the other side of the argument.

I've added the emphasis because I thought it might help remind you what you actually wrote. I asked you for one such theory. You gave me the multi-verse theory.

Now, I guess you've used the word developed in these latest post, but to me developed, made up, and created all seem pretty similar.

I also find it odd that you allow for the possibility that science can one day advance to test multiple universes, but that no evidence could ever prove the existence of an intelligent designer. (In my opinion, there is overwhelming evidence of an intelligent designer already, but beside the point)

There is a difference. I can tell you what has to be done to test string theory. I know what predictions it makes, and I know what has to be done to test those predictions (we have to build larger and more powerful super colliders that create more powerful collisions.)

What prediction is made by there is an intelligent designer? What must be done to test those predictions?

The differences are fundamental in their nature.

And to your comment that Christians were opposed to the big bang because of its idea of a start of time.

It was the scientists that were opposed to the big bang because of the religious implications with there being a start of time.

[Corcaigh]

when the Bible is filled with hundreds of predictions which have been verified as coming true.

That's worthy of a thread all by itself.

So much for the role of faith then, eh?

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 05:18 PM ----------

I love you, but in my perfect world people who play "evolution is just a theory" card have their tongue and fingers removed and are sat next to daily Fox News viewers who had the same procedure.

Bingo!

[talk show host]

Here's your previous post:

I've added the emphasis because I thought it might help remind you what you actually wrote. I asked you for one such theory. You gave me the multi-verse theory.

Now, I guess you've used the word developed in these latest post, but to me developed, made up, and created all seem pretty similar.

There is a difference. I can tell you what has to be done to test string theory. I know what predictions it makes, and I know what has to be done to test those predictions (we have to build larger and more powerful super colliders that create more powerful collisions.)

What prediction is made by there is an intelligent designer? What must be done to test those predictions?

The differences are fundamental in their nature.

It was the scientists that were opposed to the big bang because of the religious implications with there being a start of time.

To me the test on whether or not there is an intelligent designer is to look around and observe everything. Its blatantly obvious that everything was designed by someone/something. The more we learn about astronomy/biology/whatever, the more order we find which provides further evidence of a designer of some kind. To acknowledge the existence of a designer is a far simpler, straight forward, and likey theory than any other idea thats been proposed to explain the order in the universe. Please understand here that im differentiating between accepting the idea of intelligent design in the universe and accept the God of the Bible/Koran or some other religion. Thats a completely seperate conversation.

Regarding your last comment, I dont see how this is different from what i said. The scientist was also a christian. the idea that there was a start to time has no conflicts with the Bible. The only conflicts were with common philosophy that was perpetuated by people who claimed to be christians and non-christians alike.

[Corcaigh]

Its blatantly obvious that everything was designed by someone/something.

Including cancer, Alzheimers, etc.?

To acknowledge the existence of a designer is a far simpler, straight forward, and likey theory than any other idea thats been proposed to explain the order in the universe.

To acknowledge existence of a designer is to say we can't think of another explanation. It answers nothing at all because we don't know anything about the nature of the designer. Maybe there is a designer. Maybe there isn't.

Some smart folks claim our understanding of the physical world is as high as at 4%. That may be too high.

[PeterMP]

To me the test on whether or not there is an intelligent designer is to look around and observe everything. Its blatantly obvious that everything was designed by someone/something. The more we learn about astronomy/biology/whatever, the more order we find which provides further evidence of a designer of some kind. To acknowledge the existence of a designer is a far simpler, straight forward, and likey theory than any other idea thats been proposed to explain the order in the universe.

By what metric are you measuring simpler?

How do you determine likely (e.g. "far.....likely theory")

Do you not understand that measuring and determining in some robust way if things really are simpler or more likely is at the heart of science?

That you can't just get up and declear that X is more likely than Y w/o some measure of that?

Look, I'm not the type to tell you that you can't believe in an intelligent designer. I'm not even going to tell you that you can't believe in whatever creation story you want. You want to believe that the Universe and everything in iut was created in under 168 hours that's not really an argument that I have very often here (though I'd suggest if you do believe that you consider the ramifications of a "trickster god").

However, just in terms of functioning as a society and things like that, I like for people to understand the difference between science and non-science.

String theory (a multi-verse theory) says if we can smash pieces of matter together at high enough velocities so the collisions have enough energy, "strings" should be produced.

That's a pretty simple prediction. We can't smah pieces of matter together at high enough velocities so it isn't something we can say is true.

But hopefully some day we will, and then we'll either produce "string" or we won't. String theory will be validated or not. That's science.

Intelligent design doesn't do that. You can look around and say I see design. But that doesn't mean everybody else does. Unless you come up with a way to measure "design", simplier or whatever other adjective you want to use, it's a meaningless statement in terms of convincing others.

And that isn't science.

If that's what you "see", great, but that doesn't make it science.

[talk show host]

That's worthy of a thread all by itself.

So much for the role of faith then, eh?

The only faith described in the bible is that which is based on actual evidence (Heb 11:1). As it relates to prophecy, the idea is that because you have seen prophecies A, B, and C, come true, you can have confidence that D will come true, as well. As one example, astute Jews were EXPECTING the Messiah to come exactly when he did because the exact time of his coming was prophesied in scripture. Other prophecies were not clearly understood until they were fulfilled because no specific timeframe for fulfillment was stated. For example, Alexander the Great actually spared destroying Jerusalem because the Jews showed him 200-year old prophecy (from Daniel Chapter 8) that said a Powerful greek king would overthrow the Persian Empire. (Presumably they did not show him the part where it said his Empire would later be split up into 4 parts, which it was. lol)

[Jumbo]

I read through a bit of Robin Collins's website, and I didn't really find any new arguments that were particularly convincing. (As a side note, his website looks like it was created on Geocities in the late-90s and is in desperate need of an update.)

I agree with the general premise that the existence of rules for the universe points towards a Creator. And the fact the human intelligence appears to be reasonably well-suited to uncovering those rules (although it appears to challenge our limits) points towards a special role for humans in the universe.

But what I reject are the probabilistic arguments regarding fine-tuning.

<edit much fine stuff>

We know much more about the variables that affect evolution and are learning more about the existence of other habitable planets. So we can discuss real numbers in terms of evolution whereas we can't really on the cosmological questions.

Another fine offering in this fourm, DjTj.

With proper respect to him (and my undying appreciation of TB) Collins is someone I am not as impressed as TB is, nor with the "broad agreement" statement quoted and its framing and some aspects of how "fine tuning" used. Nor does my thinking align well with the flow of reasoning (I often use that term instead of logic) in some of TB's comments, or with some in yours, or that in many other fine posts I read.

But I respect them, just as when I have seen similar elsewhere from other stable, sincere, and highly intelligent people. And I use such as I frequently return to my own thinking and reexamine or challenge it anew. I don't hold any dissenting efforts at reason and critical thinking (or even classical logic) of mine in any greater esteem just because they're mine. .

There are many long-existing and valid loggerheads for many highly intelligent folk in these discussions.

I generally pass on trying to thoroughly discuss certain stuff here for years now, and for various reasons. One big reason being that, despite Predicto’s comments on my typing, I suck at keyboarding beyond belief. I am a world-class "speller" but the worst typist. My edits are profuse, and plentiful enough in even my briefer posts. And then I hit a point quickly enough where this just isn't worth what becomes too much work.

And then it sometimes really feels like work in other ways, and work that's unneeded and that I am not sure serves any useful purpose (I am just talking about me now). Sometimes there’s much more I feel like saying, but then the actual “effort” angle versus the results is sufficiently daunting to stop me. An outcome for which I’m sure all assembled here can agree to feel gratitude.

With all its off-topic meandering*, this has been one of the better threads recently on these matters.

(*I actually had a piece written early yesterday where I stepped in to address Peter and alexy with all the love of a Jewish grandmother and call for more focus on original topic, but my ever-dependable spidey-sense stepped in and I held it back---it will happen again sometime though, you two!!)

[Predicto]

nevermind. I caught up in the thread.

[Jumbo]

To me the test on whether or not there is an intelligent designer is to look around and observe everything. Its blatantly obvious that everything was designed by someone/something.

It might be beneficial for you to pause and seriously reflect on how it is possible, if what you say is true, that so many many amazingly intelligent people for so so long, find that statement completely and easily challengeable. Really consider the implication of you seeing something so easily and clearly, so "blatantly obvious", and they (or I for that matter, though I'm not an atheist) do not. What would your explanation for that be? Imagine the list of names that would fit your "those unable to see the blatantly obvious" designation.

---------- Post added February-7th-2013 at 03:28 PM ----------

nevermind. I caught up in the thread.

Yeah, I would have retracted that too as "being too kind" :evilg: but then you know how bad I am. :halo:

[techboy]

Anyway, I always feel a little odd disagreeing with brilliant people on any matter, even if other brilliant people disagree with them, too

Leaving aside the somewhat sad reality that agreement with any somewhat controversial but still mainstream proposal will leave you disagreeing with somebody, I think you might be surprised.

Collins is a Christian, and in that sense I have no doubt you disagree with at least some of what he writes.

Davies, though, is not. I was recently reading a collection of thoughts by various thinkers on whether or not the universe has purpose. Several said yes (theologians) or probably (scientists), several said no or probably not.

Davies said "perhaps".

He did come under fire from guys like PZ Meyers for an op ed in which he examined the historical relationship between the development of the scientific method (and the traditional assumption of science that there are immutable, fundamental laws of the universe) and Western monotheism, which he (correctly in my view) says was the origin as it was developed by guys like Galileo and Newton , but PZ and company hardly restrict their fire to theists.

(As a side note, his website looks like it was created on Geocities in the late-90s and is in desperate need of an update.)

True enough.

Still, I did not recommend his work for his web design skills, or his beard, but because he's probably the strongest proponent of the teleological argument working today (at least of which I'm aware).

Perhaps the values of these variables are simply a consequence of some more fundamental aspect of creation.

PeterMP raised this objection earlier, I believe, but to be honest, it doesn't persuade me for two reasons:

1. There is no reason at this time to believe that a Grand Unified Theory will ever be found, or that it will require that the various forces be interdependent such that they could have been no other way. We can only work with what we have.

2. Even if it were found to be true, I'd suggest that discovering that the fundamental laws (Law) of the universe are (is) such that we could only get one that permits life would be quite the coiincidence (to put it mildly) and perhaps even more amazing than the idea that the constants are independent yet came to be such.

So I think that this objection at best just pushes things up a level, but leads to the same conclusion.

Here's how Collins puts it

Objection 1: More Fundamental Law Objection

One criticism of the fine-tuning argument is that, as far as we know, there could be a more fundamental law under which the parameters of physics must have the values they do. Thus, given such a law, it is not improbable that the known parameters of physics fall within the life-permitting range.

Besides being entirely speculative, the problem with postulating such a law is that it simply moves the improbability of the fine-tuning up one level, to that of the postulated physical law itself. Under this hypothesis, what is improbable is that all the conceivable fundamental physical laws there could be, the universe just happens to have the one that constrains the parameters of physics in a life-permitting way. Thus, trying to explain the fine-tuning by postulating this sort of fundamental law is like trying to explain why the pattern of rocks below a cliff spell "Welcome to the mountains Robin Collins" by postulating that an earthquake occurred and that all the rocks on the cliff face were arranged in just the right configuration to fall into the pattern in question. Clearly this explanation merely transfers the improbability up one level, since now it seems enormously improbable that of all the possible configurations the rocks could be in on the cliff face, they are in the one which results in the pattern "Welcome to the mountains Robin Collins."

A similar sort of response can be given to the claim that the fine-tuning is not improbable because it might be logically necessary for the parameters of physics to have life-permitting values. That is, according to this claim, the parameters of physics must have life-permitting values in the same way 2 + 2 must equal 4, or the interior angles of a triangle must add up to 180 degrees in Euclidian geometry. Like the "more fundamental law" proposal above, however, this postulate simply transfers the improbability up one level: of all the laws and parameters of physics that conceivably could have been logically necessary, it seems highly improbable that it would be those that are life-permitting.(3)

To me the test on whether or not there is an intelligent designer is to look around and observe everything. Its blatantly obvious that everything was designed by someone/something.

Just so you know, this is just about the weakest and most easily refuted form of the teleological argument in existence. Appearances can be deceiving, and there are plenty of examples of things that seem "obvious" but are not true.

[Jumbo]

Collins is a Christian, and in that sense I have no doubt you disagree with at least some of what he writes.

Well, I haven't read him directly in five years (or more), so I was thinking of reviewing but now that I remember he's a Christian, forget it. :pfft:

Know any good Muslim fine-tuners?

In service to many of my previous comments in both related threads, on matters of sources, brilliance, disagreement, logic, speculation, theorizing, evidence, claims etc. and the "chef's gumbo" they get tossed in (and while "just another link") some folks newer to this stuff may find this site (like the Stanford one), and this page (link below) useful for where this discussion is at, currently.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/

an excerpt

2. Contemporary Versions of the Design Argument

Contemporary versions of the design argument typically attempt to articulate a more sophisticated strategy for detecting evidence of design in the world. These versions typically contain three main elements—though they are not always explicitly articulated. First, they identify some property P that is thought to be a probabilistically reliable index of design in the following sense: a design explanation for P is significantly more probable than any explanation that relies on chance or random processes. Second they argue that some feature or features of the world exhibits P. Third, they conclude that the design explanation is significantly more likely to be true.

As we will see, however, all of the contemporary versions of the design inference seem to be vulnerable to roughly the same objection. While each of the design inferences in these arguments has legitimate empirical uses, those uses occur only in contexts where we have strong antecedent reason for believing there exist intelligent agents with the ability to bring about the relevant event, entity, or property. But since it is the very existence of such a being that is at issue in the debates about the existence of God, design arguments appear unable to stand by themselves as arguments for God’s existence.

the following are subset topics from above that are not quoted:

a. The Argument from Irreducible Biochemical Complexity; b. The Argument from Biological Information; c. The Fine-Tuning Arguments

the word "objection" in the above quoted excerpt is also a link to the text (on another page) below:

e. Teleological Arguments

In William Paley’s famous analysis, he argues by analogy that the presence of order in the universe, like the features we find in a watch, are indicative of the existence of a designer who is responsible for the artifact. Many authors—David Hume (1935), Wesley Salmon (1978), Michael Martin (1990)—have argued that a better case can be made for the nonexistence of God from the evidence.

Salmon, giving a modern Bayesian version of an argument that begins with Hume, argues that the likelihood that the ordered universe was created by intelligence is very low. In general, instances of biologically or mechanically caused generation without intelligence are far more common than instances of creation from intelligence. Furthermore, the probability that something that is generated by a biological or mechanical cause will exhibit order is quite high. Among those things that are designed, the probability that they exhibit order may be quite high, but that is not the same as asserting that among the things that exhibit order the probability that they were designed is high. Among dogs, the incidence of fur may be high, but it is not true that among furred things the incidence of dogs is high. Furthermore, intelligent design and careful planning very frequently produces disorder—war, industrial pollution, insecticides, and so on.

So we can conclude that the probability that an unspecified entity (like the universe), which came into being and exhibits order, was produced by intelligent design is very low and that the empirical evidence indicates that there was no designer.

---as one would imagine, there is much more at link, even on that one topic--

some info on the site itself:

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy---A Peer Reviewed Academic Resource

<wiki>

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) is a free online encyclopedia on philosophical topics and philosophers founded by James Fieser in 1995. The current general editors are James Fieser (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Tennessee at Martin) and Bradley Dowden (Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Sacramento <Jumbo note---I know that guy! :geek:>. The staff also includes numerous area editors as well as volunteers.

The IEP is a non-profit organization that receives no funding.[1] The mission statement of the IEP is as follows:

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy was founded in 1995 for the purpose of providing detailed, scholarly information on key topics and philosophers in all areas of philosophy. The IEP is free of charge and available to all internet users world wide. The present staff of 25 editors and approximately 200 authors hold doctorate degrees and are professors at colleges and universities around the world, most notably from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. The submission and review process of articles is the same as that with printed philosophy journals, books and reference works. The authors are specialists in the areas in which they write, and are frequently leading authorities.[1]

[authentic]

I love you, but in my perfect world people who play "evolution is just a theory" card have their tongue and fingers removed and are sat next to daily Fox News viewers who had the same procedure.

Nope, i'm just convinced that concept of "Creation" (an intelligent designer) is more plausible and, to be quite honest, more rational. BTW i have no issue with the use of science. Science is wonderful - which actually convinces me more so that a single intelligent agent created the material universe. Besides it all occurring by "Chance".

[Jumbo]

Nope, i'm just convinced that concept of "Creation" (an intelligent designer) is more plausible and, to be quite honest, more rational. BTW i have no issue with the use of science. Science is wonderful - which actually convinces me more so that a single intelligent agent created the material universe. Besides it all occurring by "Chance".

Awesome.

So you enter the thread during some of its most involved exchanges of complex materials and concepts to say some of the most simplistic stuff possible on the matter, using rather eclectic sentence structure, and pay zero attention to anything outside your box, and basically imply you have no need for any other input since you have the answer settled for yourself. Kind of you to drop by for the (apparently) sole purpose of notifying us of your situation. Well done, sir!

:pfft: :evilg: <existential grin smiley>

<messing with you>

[PeterMP]

2. Even if it were found to be true, I'd suggest that discovering that the fundamental laws (Law) of the universe are (is) such that we could only get one that permits life would be quite the coiincidence (to put it mildly) and perhaps even more amazing than the idea that the constants are independent yet came to be such.

From a probability stand point, if you have dice that are only 6's, then getting a 12 isn't unlikely.

You're going to look a little silly running around claiming your special because you rolled a 12 if people start looking at the dice and find they only have sixes.

If that's the case to say more, you'd have to know something about the process by which the dice are made or became "the" dice to say how likely or unlikely that is.

(And your forgetting the idea they might not even be constants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine-structure_constant_actually_constant.3F

)

**EDIT**

techboy, how far does this go? If it turns out there is variation in the constants in our universe and a multi-verse where there is variation there so that there is a likely a large number of combinations, does the fine tuning argument go away?

Does it become, well that there are so many combinations and ways to combine them that is evidence of a designer so that the combination that can give you life would be happen, and you aren't fixed only with a combination that doesn't give life?

[DjTj]

PeterMP raised this objection earlier, I believe, but to be honest, it doesn't persuade me for two reasons:

1. There is no reason at this time to believe that a Grand Unified Theory will ever be found, or that it will require that the various forces be interdependent such that they could have been no other way. We can only work with what we have.

Unfortunately, I think Collins and other proponents of fine-tuning are mischaracterizing "what we have." We have a bunch of constants in our various equations that we have measured to increasingly degrees of accuracy. But we have no idea whether these constants can change, how much they can change, or what their relationship is with each other. Making estimates on the probability of of the values of these constants is impossible without this statistical information.

2. Even if it were found to be true, I'd suggest that discovering that the fundamental laws (Law) of the universe are (is) such that we could only get one that permits life would be quite the coiincidence (to put it mildly) and perhaps even more amazing than the idea that the constants are independent yet came to be such.

I agree with the idea that it is amazing. And I don't think it is a coincidence. But I don't think we have enough information to determine how much of a coincidence it may or may not be.

So I think that this objection at best just pushes things up a level, but leads to the same conclusion.

Here's how Collins puts it

Besides being entirely speculative, the problem with postulating such a law is that it simply moves the improbability of the fine-tuning up one level, to that of the postulated physical law itself. Under this hypothesis, what is improbable is that all the conceivable fundamental physical laws there could be, the universe just happens to have the one that constrains the parameters of physics in a life-permitting way. Thus, trying to explain the fine-tuning by postulating this sort of fundamental law is like trying to explain why the pattern of rocks below a cliff spell "Welcome to the mountains Robin Collins" by postulating that an earthquake occurred and that all the rocks on the cliff face were arranged in just the right configuration to fall into the pattern in question. Clearly this explanation merely transfers the improbability up one level, since now it seems enormously improbable that of all the possible configurations the rocks could be in on the cliff face, they are in the one which results in the pattern "Welcome to the mountains Robin Collins."

The problem here is that Collins again compares something for which we can estimate a probability (the chances of an earthquake randomly causing rocks to spell out a sentence) with something that we can't estimate a probability (the chances that the universe would be created the way it is).

He can move the "improbability" up or down as much has he likes, but he still can't quantify the "improbability." I am willing to say that it is remarkable and amazing that we appear to have predictable physical laws in a universe that is well-suited to our survival and our understanding. And I am willing to say that this points toward a creator. But I am not willing to put a number on it or quantify it as "improbable." We simply have no idea what any of the numbers are to judge whether our physical laws are probable or improbable.

I do think this general argument has merit, and it is certainly something that supports my own belief in a Creator God. But I just don't like the language of "tuning" when we don't know whether anything can be tuned, or the implication that we can compute numbers that establish some kind of improbability. The information necessary to make those calculations is simply unavailable with our current scientific knowledge.

[Predicto]

Crazy Lord Monckton used a similar sort of probability analysis to prove that the chances Barack Obama's birth certificate was genuine was 1 in 62.5 quintillion against. He used math, and numbers don't lie!

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/the-probability-os-birth-certificate-is-genuine/

[techboy]

From a probability stand point, if you have dice that are only 6's, then getting a 12 isn't unlikely.

I understood your point the first time, and I think the text you were responding to is an adequate answer to this concern.

(And your forgetting the idea they might not even be constants:

I didn't forget, I was just waiting for you to bring it up, as you have been doing in the past few go rounds.

To this comment, I'd again have three responses:

1. I am unaware of any reason to believe that this is actually true.

2. Even if it is, I don't see how it undercuts the point. If anything, it would seem to make it more surprising that a life-permitting universe could form. In this scenario, not only do we need those numbers to be what they are, but we need for them not to have changed to something else.

3. If nothing else, it kind of undercuts the "constants couldn't have been anything else" objection you raised, doesn't it?

techboy, how far does this go?

I think the demonstration of a multiverse scenario with a nearly infinite number of universes would do a lot of damage to the argument (at least this form of it), because then it would be reasonable to say something like "there are lots of universes out there, and so some of them are going to support life, and it's not surprising that I would observe one, because I wouldn't be around to observe it if I was in one of the ones that didn't support life".

We could then, I suppose, take a look at the underlying mechanism generating these multiple universes and whether or not it possesses attributes that could be seen as fine tuned beyond what is satisfactorily explained by chance, but that would really be a different argument and one that is both pointless to examine without some evidence that such a thing exists and also honestly beyond my current grasp of Physics.

Making estimates on the probability of of the values of these constants is impossible without this statistical information.

I personally don't have the background or training to determine whether or not this is true, but I'm pretty sure Roger Penrose does:

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931), is an English mathematical physicist, recreational mathematician and philosopher. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.

Penrose is internationally renowned for his scientific work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1]

Here's a short video where he talks about just one of the elements discussed with fine tuning, entropy, and the odds against us there (Cue Han Solo: "Never tell me the odds!")

If you want to skip to the payoff: 1 in 10^10^123 (a number so large that according to Penrose, if you were to put one zero on every particle in the observable universe, you'd run out of particles before finishing), you can jump ahead to about the 3:00 mark.

It's not like he's the only one, either. The consensus Davies refers to is because lots of people have done similar math, and realized that something here requires explanation. Luke Barnes, a postdoctoral researcher in astronomy at the University of Sydney, recently compiled this list on his blog. (Side note, he has several good articles on fine tuning on his blog, as well as having gotten an article on the subject in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia)

In any case, if you’d rather decide this issue by a show of hands rather than good arguments, then let’s play pick the odd one out of these non-theist scientists.

Wilczek: life appears to depend upon delicate coincidences that we have not been able to explain. The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between life’s requirements and nature’s choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.

Hawking: “Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. … The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.”

Rees: Any universe hospitable to life – what we might call a biophilic universe – has to be ‘adjusted’ in a particular way. The prerequisites for any life of the kind we know about — long-lived stable stars, stable atoms such as carbon, oxygen and silicon, able to combine into complex molecules, etc — are sensitive to the physical laws and to the size, expansion rate and contents of the universe. Indeed, even for the most open-minded science fiction writer, ‘life’ or ‘intelligence’ requires the emergence of some generic complex structures: it can’t exist in a homogeneous universe, not in a universe containing only a few dozen particles. Many recipes would lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short-lived or too empty to allow anything to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.

Linde: the existence of an amazingly strong correlation between our own properties and the values of many parameters of our world, such as the masses and charges of electron and proton, the value of the gravitational constant, the amplitude of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electroweak theory, the value of the vacuum energy, and the dimensionality of our world, is an experimental fact requiring an explanation.

Susskind: The Laws of Physics … are almost always deadly. In a sense the laws of nature are like East Coast weather: tremendously variable, almost always awful, but on rare occasions, perfectly lovely. … [O]ur own universe is an extraordinary place that appears to be fantastically well designed for our own existence. This specialness is not something that we can attribute to lucky accidents, which is far too unlikely. The apparent coincidences cry out for an explanation.

Guth: in the multiverse, life will evolve only in very rare regions where the local laws of physics just happen to have the properties needed for life, giving a simple explanation for why the observed universe appears to have just the right properties for the evolution of life. The incredibly small value of the cosmological constant is a telling example of a feature that seems to be needed for life, but for which an explanation from fundamental physics is painfully lacking.

Smolin: Our universe is much more complex than most universes with the same laws but different values of the parameters of those laws. In particular, it has a complex astrophysics, including galaxies and long lived stars, and a complex chemistry, including carbon chemistry. These necessary conditions for life are present in our universe as a consequence of the complexity which is made possible by the special values of the parameters.

(Note: These are quotes, and the original article has links).

And, for the record, Penrose isn't a theist either.

As I already noted, people of course have differing views on why this apparent fine-tuning has come to be, but I don't believe the fact that it is (or the math behind it) is very controversial at all, and again, I think it's one of the big reasons the multiverse hypothesis is so popular among scientists that would otherwise scoff at such an untested (and possibly untestable) idea.

[PeterMP]

To this comment, I'd again have three responses:

1. I am unaware of any reason to believe that this is actually true.

2. Even if it is, I don't see how it undercuts the point. If anything, it would seem to make it more surprising that a life-permitting universe could form. In this scenario, not only do we need those numbers to be what they are, but we need for them not to have changed to something else.

3. If nothing else, it kind of undercuts the "constants couldn't have been anything else" objection you raised, doesn't it?

1. Well, it is open for debate, I think as the wiki page describes, but do you have a reason to believe its not true?

2. Wouldn't that depend on how stable the numbers appear to be and why?

3. I think not so much that they can't be different, but that they aren't really independent in the way required for the fine tuninng argument to work would be an issue.

[talk show host]

Including cancer, Alzheimers, etc.?

To acknowledge existence of a designer is to say we can't think of another explanation. It answers nothing at all because we don't know anything about the nature of the designer. Maybe there is a designer. Maybe there isn't.

Some smart folks claim our understanding of the physical world is as high as at 4%. That may be too high.

The bible explains cancer, Alzheimer's, etc. and tells us we can learn about the personality of the designer by observing his creation. But putting christianity aside, its obvious that the intelligence that created the universe would have to be an extra dimensional being. (By the same token, most theories ive read that remove God from the creation also state that the couldnt exist without influence from dimensions we arent reqdily familiar with). we can't comprehend the "physical" nature of God any more than a 1 dimensional being could comprehend a 3 dimensional being. Our entire existence is defined by time, but time is a charactistic of the three dimensional universe. The intelligence that designed the universe also created time and we can't really fathom what it would be like to exist outside of time. Even our thoughts follow a sequence of events, but such would not be the case for a person that existed outside of time.

[DjTj]

I personally don't have the background or training to determine whether or not this is true, but I'm pretty sure Roger Penrose does:

Here's a short video where he talks about just one of the elements discussed with fine tuning, entropy, and the odds against us there (Cue Han Solo: "Never tell me the odds!")

Penrose is making a very specific calculation regarding the entropy of the early universe based on an assumed distribution of quantum mechanical states and the present working theory of a rapidly inflating early universe with precise characteristics. I am not sure about the efficacy of his assumption regarding the distribution of quantum states, and I think that we will see changes in our theories of early-universe inflation over the next decade or so.

Here is a recent Scientific American article addressing the inflation debate and suggesting that Penrose's calculation suggests that the inflationary theory is wrong: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

It's not like he's the only one, either. The consensus Davies refers to is because lots of people have done similar math, and realized that something here requires explanation. Luke Barnes, a postdoctoral researcher in astronomy at the University of Sydney, recently compiled this list on his blog. (Side note, he has several good articles on fine tuning on his blog, as well as having gotten an article on the subject in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia)

I like this Barnes paper, but he still leaves a loose end:

Alternatively, we could discover that the set of possible universes is much smaller than we thought. This scenario is much more interesting. What if, when we really understand the laws of nature, we will realise that they could not have been different? We must be clear about the claim being made. If the claim is that the laws of nature are fixed by logical and mathematical necessity, then this is demonstrably wrong — theoretical physicists find it rather easy to describe alternative universes that are free from logical contradiction (Davies, in Davies 2003). The category of ‘physically possible’ isn’t much help either, as the laws of nature tell us what is physically possible, but not which laws are possible.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/view/journals/dsp_journal_fulltext.cfm?nid=138&f=AS12015

He admits there that there is no basis for a denominator regarding the laws of nature: there is no known logical constraint or physical constraint.

And of course Paul Davies, who you quote to support a consensus around fine-tuning, also recognizes this problem:

The problem is that there is no natural way to quantify the intrinsic improbability of the known ‘coincidences’. From what range might the value of, say the strength of the nuclear force . . . be selected? If the range is infinite, then any finite range of values might be considered to have zero probability of being selected. But then we should be equally surprised however weakly the requirements for life constrain those values. This is surely a reductio ad absurdum of the whole argument. What is needed is a sort of metatheory – a theory of theories – that supplies a well-defined probability for any given range of parameter values. No such metatheory is available, or has to my knowledge ever been proposed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2us7445YjgMC&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q&f=false

Even in your quote from Davies regarding a "broad agreement" on "fine-tuning," he leaves "fine-tuning" in quotes. And he does not purport to address it in any depth:

The analysis usually does not extend to more than these broad-brush considerations – that the observed universe is a ‘well-found laboratory’ in which the great experiment called life has been successfully carried out.

http://d.scribd.com/docs/1m6v6mx7h4nzlvxtocr5.pdf

And of course Penrose himself, while supporting the improbability of the entropy of the early universe, believes in the weak anthropic principle:

The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the earth's history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question — so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!

http://books.google.com/books?id=oI0grArWHUMC&pg=PA560

As I already noted, people of course have differing views on why this apparent fine-tuning has come to be, but I don't believe the fact that it is (or the math behind it) is very controversial at all, and again, I think it's one of the big reasons the multiverse hypothesis is so popular among scientists that would otherwise scoff at such an untested (and possibly untestable) idea.

I think that there is broad agreement among scientists (and almost all human beings) of the remarkable character of the universe, which give us an intuitive sense that our universe is improbable. And many scientists have certainly put forth various calculations in an attempt to estimate the probability that certain parameters were tuned to specific values. But I do not see any broad consensus regarding the actual values that are computed. Penrose computed a number, and others have computed other numbers, but there is criticism of each of these calculations, and there is no consensus for how best to compute the probability.

Each probability calculation is based on certain assumptions, and in many cases these are very reasonable assumptions. And so I do think it is reasonable for you and many others to find comfort in the fact that these calculations yield very low probabilities. But because of the limitations cited by Barnes (we cannot establish logical/mathematical constraints or physical constraints on our "tuned" parameters), I don't see the fine-tuning calculations as definitive evidence of any particular probability for tuning. I think they point toward a Creator God, but I don't think they provide any reliable value for the probability of a Creator God. This may explain why people like Davies and Penrose can believe in certain forms of fine-tuning, but not believe in God. This is a compelling teleological argument, but it is not irrefutable.

[talk show host]

By what metric are you measuring simpler?

How do you determine likely (e.g. "far.....likely theory")

Do you not understand that measuring and determining in some robust way if things really are simpler or more likely is at the heart of science?

That you can't just get up and declear that X is more likely than Y w/o some measure of that?

Look, I'm not the type to tell you that you can't believe in an intelligent designer. I'm not even going to tell you that you can't believe in whatever creation story you want. You want to believe that the Universe and everything in iut was created in under 168 hours that's not really an argument that I have very often here (though I'd suggest if you do believe that you consider the ramifications of a "trickster god").

However, just in terms of functioning as a society and things like that, I like for people to understand the difference between science and non-science.

String theory (a multi-verse theory) says if we can smash pieces of matter together at high enough velocities so the collisions have enough energy, "strings" should be produced.

That's a pretty simple prediction. We can't smah pieces of matter together at high enough velocities so it isn't something we can say is true.

But hopefully some day we will, and then we'll either produce "string" or we won't. String theory will be validated or not. That's science.

Intelligent design doesn't do that. You can look around and say I see design. But that doesn't mean everybody else does. Unless you come up with a way to measure "design", simplier or whatever other adjective you want to use, it's a meaningless statement in terms of convincing others.

And that isn't science.

If that's what you "see", great, but that doesn't make it science.

Please don't disrespect me by saying I believe the universe was created in 168 hours when I've specifically said I don't believe that. The bible doesn't teach that. Only stupid people who base their beliefs on things other stupid people say believe that. Or intelligent atheists whose impression of the bible is unfortunately based on what they've observed from stupid people who claim to be Christian.

You dismiss the possibility of intelligent design because it cant be tested in a laboratory the same way some human theories could be tested. I find that incredibly arrogant and narrow minded, the heart of science is observation and evidence of design everywhere. You don't have to spend 100 billion dollars building a laboratory to perform a test to observe the results. It's obvious to anyone who chooses not ignore it.

The chances of the universe and life on this planet evolving without any direction are small. You criticize this argument by saying we can't measure this, but common sense tells you it's highly improbable. Intelligent humans can't create complex life in a laboratory, but you think given enough time, it would happen on its own? And not be extinguished immediately but grow enough that an entire planet teams with trillions upon trillions of life forms? And some just happened to become intelligent enough to develop qualities like self awareness and morality? You can chose to believe all that, but it's preposterous in my opinion to think that all that is "more likely" than the possibility that an intelligence beyond our comprehension guided the process. It's a simple, elegant, and plausible answer to theories that depend on randomness and chance.

[talk show host]

By what metric are you measuring simpler?

How do you determine likely (e.g. "far.....likely theory")

Do you not understand that measuring and determining in some robust way if things really are simpler or more likely is at the heart of science?

That you can't just get up and declear that X is more likely than Y w/o some measure of that?

Look, I'm not the type to tell you that you can't believe in an intelligent designer. I'm not even going to tell you that you can't believe in whatever creation story you want. You want to believe that the Universe and everything in iut was created in under 168 hours that's not really an argument that I have very often here (though I'd suggest if you do believe that you consider the ramifications of a "trickster god").

However, just in terms of functioning as a society and things like that, I like for people to understand the difference between science and non-science.

String theory (a multi-verse theory) says if we can smash pieces of matter together at high enough velocities so the collisions have enough energy, "strings" should be produced.

That's a pretty simple prediction. We can't smah pieces of matter together at high enough velocities so it isn't something we can say is true.

But hopefully some day we will, and then we'll either produce "string" or we won't. String theory will be validated or not. That's science.

Intelligent design doesn't do that. You can look around and say I see design. But that doesn't mean everybody else does. Unless you come up with a way to measure "design", simplier or whatever other adjective you want to use, it's a meaningless statement in terms of convincing others.

And that isn't science.

If that's what you "see", great, but that doesn't make it science.

Please don't disrespect me by saying I believe the universe was created in 168 hours when I've specifically said I don't believe that. The bible doesn't teach that. Only stupid people who base their beliefs on things other stupid people say believe that. Or intelligent atheists whose impression of the bible is unfortunately based on what they've observed from stupid people who claim to be Christian.

You dismiss the possibility of intelligent design because it cant be tested in a laboratory the same way some human theories could be tested. I find that incredibly arrogant and narrow minded, the heart of science is observation and evidence of design everywhere. You don't have to spend 100 billion dollars building a laboratory to perform a test to observe the results. It's obvious to anyone who chooses not ignore it.

The chances of the universe and life on this planet evolving without any direction are small. You criticize this argument by saying we can't measure this, but common sense tells you it's highly improbable. Intelligent humans can't create complex life in a laboratory, but you think given enough time, it would happen on its own? And not be extinguished immediately but grow enough that an entire planet teams with trillions upon trillions of life forms? And some just happened to become intelligent enough to develop qualities like self awareness and morality? You can chose to believe all that, but it's preposterous in my opinion to think that all that is "more likely" than the possibility that an intelligence beyond our comprehension guided the process. It's a simple, elegant, and plausible answer in comparison to theories that depend on randomness and chance.

[MonkFan8]

The heart of science isn't simply observation, it's making testable predictions about our world based off of those observations in an attempt to further our understanding.

To say the evidence for design in the natural world is "obvious" is disingenuous at best. If you're just looking for the most parsimonious explanation that happens to fit your own personal world view, I have absolutely no issue with that. But, to my knowledge, every biological system that has been posited as evidence of design has been explained through evolutionary processes. Of course, that isn't to say science is currently capable of understanding each complex system in its entirety, particularly at the molecular level, but it isn't enough to simply say that because it is functional and complex that it must be designed.