The latest argument against design came from Darwin, the argument is that evolution by natural selection can explain the variety and complexity of life on earth that we used to think necessitated an intelligent designer. While this argument works in biology since life can change with every new generation, no such argument exists in the area of physics. For some time now atheist scientists have been wrestling with the apparent design of the universal constants found in physics. Universal constants like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the weight of protons, neutrons and electrons, and the magnitude of the strong and weak nuclear forces are all exactly what they need to be for life to exist. If they deviated by one part in a million, life would not be possible. For example, if the strong nuclear force changed by 0.0001% then six protons wouldn't combine to make a stable carbon atom (required for all carbon based life). Life exists on a knife edge of universal constants.
When confronted with the incredible improbability of the universe providing the exact conditions required for life, some confuse these universal conditions with biological conditions, arguing that we evolved to suit our environment rather than our environment being designed for us. A popular version of this confusion is known as puddle theory (from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe). Puddle theory draws an analogy of a puddle becoming aware that the hole he occupies fits him perfectly, and so he contemplates its designer as he evaporates in the afternoon sun. However, the anthropic principle (also known as the fine-tuning argument) isn't an argument about the improbability of life existing in certain environments, it's an argument about the improbability of life existing at all. It's not the fine-tuning of life that already exists, it's the fine tuning of universal constants that are required for life to exist. Life can adapt to fit a certain environment (like a puddle in a hole), but it can't adapt from non-existence to existence. Puddle theory is an analogy for evolution, but not the anthropic principle. For puddle theory to scratch the surface of the anthropic principle, the puddle would have to become aware of something like the hydrogen bond which causes hydrogen and oxygen, which are both gases at room temperature, to combine to become a liquid (water) at room temperature.
Some have tried to use the fact that life exists on a knife edge of universal constants as an argument against design. Conceding the narrowness of the conditions for life, they argue that if the universe was designed it was an extremely inefficient design (“some design” they say) since life does not exist in the vast majority of the universe, and has not existed for the vast majority of the history of the universe. Again, this is confusing the universal conditions that make life possible in the first place, with environmental conditions like temperature, gravity and an atmosphere. Leaving this aside, their argument is against a god who is either in a hurry, or needs to be efficient (presumably because creating a big universe would be difficult), or both. If God's purpose in creating the universe was to create life on earth (especially human kind), then it is a successful design. There's simply no reason why God would have to create a universe that was smaller or younger to achieve his purpose. If God is omnipotent then creating a vast universe is not difficult for him. Unless God is impatient there's no rush to create life straight after the big bang.
Apparently the strongest counter argument against the anthropic principle is the multiverse theory: that there are as many universes as there are combinations of universal constants and we just happen to be in one where the constants are what they need to be for life to exist. Most atheist scientists put this forward as if it doesn't require more faith than intelligent design. Some even claim to have evidence for other universes from satellite pictures and measurements, however they are claiming to observe a universe that exists outside of our universe, from observations that are made from within our universe. In order to observe other universes, you would have to somehow be outside of our universe, unless this was a closed universe with a window at the end that allows us to see what's outside of our universe.
What's more disturbing is the lack of science in this theory that's put forward as scientific. Science begins with observation from which hypotheses are made and then tested. The multiverse theory did not begin with observation, it was proposed as a theory which then led to a search for observation (which has not found anything). Furthermore, there is no scientific way to test the multiverse theory, no experiments to test the theory have even been proposed let alone carried out. Without any scientific beginning or any scientific way forward, this is nothing more than a philosophical speculation disguised as a scientific theory. If there was a single shred of evidence for the multiverse it would have the potential to be a scientific theory, but until then it remains a convoluted speculation (which should really be discarded by Occam's razor), proposed in order to justify the rejection of an intelligent designer whom atheists would prefer didn't exist.
This post is interesting... but I was under the impression that the scientific method generally starts with a question, then a search for evidence, and then conclusions. Nothing wrong with starting with a theory in my opinion, as long as you're willing to accept that it might end up being proved wrong.
ReplyDeleteHi Stephen,
ReplyDeleteYes, you need to start with a question or an area to apply the scientific method on, but once you have a subject of inquiry to apply the scientific method, the first step involves observations, definitions, and measurements. This is especially true of physics: "The foundation of general physics is experience. These everyday experiences we do not discover without deliberately directing our attention to them. Collecting information about these is observation." — Hans Christian Ørsted (First Introduction to General Physics", p13)
True, hypotheses are prompted by observation. I originally thought the observation of the fine-tuned universe prompted multiverse theories but that seems to "generally" not be the case as apparently "most [multiverse theories] have arisen independently out of developments in cosmology and particle physics" (Carr, 2007, p. 4).
ReplyDeleteI'd agree treating the multiverse as anything other than undetermined theory is not scientific but it may be harder to argue that its very origin/core is also not scientific unless you've done a lot of reading (which I have not). It'll certainly get a physicist's attention though :-)
It sounds like you may have read Carr's "Universe of Multiverse?" (link) or something similar. There's probably better and newer books but pp. 14-17 was interesting:
1. "The [multiverse] is highly speculative and, from both a cosomological and a particle physics perspective, ... is currently untestable" (as you said)
2. "At the very least the notion of the multiverse requires us to extend our idea of what constitutes legitimate science."
3. "The fine-tunings certainly do not provide unequivocal evidence for God, nor would the existence of a multiverse preclude God since ... there is no reason why a Creator should not act through the multiverse."
Also, you seem to conclude by discarding the multiverse rather than an intelligent designer because the multiverse relies on more assumptions. Are you intentionally going beyond the limits of science there? To me, that seems a largely subjective/philosophical decision. Would you agree that it is actually a stalement between the multiverse and a designer when a) it is viewed from a strictly scientific perspective and b) when forcing a dichotomy between them?
ReplyDeleteWithout first having faith in God I see explaining the origin of the universal constants as a philosophical debate too profound for a conclusion. Either someone put them there or they just were. At least if there is no possible evidence, surely science can't help. I believe that removing the atheist's crutch on science is certainly possible in this case (and likely to give them pause for thought) but I'm not sure that was your intention.
It depends what you mean by "going beyond the limits of science". There's no scientific proof for either a multiverse or an intelligent designer, but as you say "the multiverse relies on more assumptions" and Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected where Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models. I don't think it is a stalemate, an intelligent designer assumes less and explains more. I don't have enough faith to believe in a multiverse.
ReplyDeleteI said you concluded the multiverse requires more assumptions :-)
ReplyDeleteI mean that philosophy is beyond the scope of science (link). I mean I see a designer requiring fewer assumptions than other current theories as a philosophical claim rather than a scientific and verifiable one and wanted to know whether you also intend for it to be philosophical.
Of course it could have already been scientifically verified that a designer is simpler. Do you have any suggested reading that explains why we should assume a designer is simpler? Or at least philosophically argues it well?
Also, if I were an atheist I would point out that wikipedia also says: "the simplest explanation may be ruled out as new data become available" and "science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data".
Sorry for putting words in your mouth, are you coming to a different conclusion? I don't remember calling it a philosophical claim (though I see you point), I'm saying it's scientific to the degree that Occam's razor is a scientific principle. For further readings I'd suggest Where the Conflict Really Lies and Gunning for God, essentially the argument is that when there's no explanation for why things are the way they are, aside from the fact that they need to be that way for life to exist, its either evidence for design or an amazing coincidence. The multiverse theory is nothing more than a speculation trying to cope with the unlikelihood of such an amazing coincidence.
ReplyDeleteYes, intelligent design may be ruled out as new data becomes available. This makes intelligent design scientifically falsifiable rather than pure philosophy outside of the realm of science. I'm arguing that not only is there no evidence for a multiverse (to rule out intelligent design), but that we would have to go, or at least make observations, outside of our universe to obtain any such evidence.
Thanks for the links, I'll try and get Plantinga's book for starters.
ReplyDeleteI'd only add to your last point that I found your main post to implicitly state there can never be a possible way to test the multiverse theory. I may have read that into what you said though.
Personally, I would like to conclude that the universe is designed because it fits nicely with my belief in God. The problem is I don't yet know how such a conclusion is any more scientifically defensible, any less speculative, or any less faith-based than any other evidenceless alternative.
I think we disagree on that last sentence and you might say that theists are currently winning in most/all these respects?
Either way, your post argues well the fact that atheists shouldn't use pseudo-science to assume an undeserved advantage. Thanks for putting up with the questions.