AfF #6: Fine-tuning Argument

(Click here for Arguments for Fred #5)

The fine-tuning argument is actually part of the teleological argument.

The way the universe is arranged, from the micro to the macro, is just so. It turns out that everything is just right for intelligent life on Earth. This is so amazingly improbable it must have been done on purpose.

Actually no. Look at the size of the universe (in particular, look at the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image). Compared to the size of the universe, life on Earth is an invisible dot on an invisible dot on an invisible dot on an invisible dot. What kind of intelligent creator would make something so mind-bogglingly vast, just so that an infinitesimal part of it could develop intelligent life, while the rest of creation remains – to an almost universal degree – dispassionately deadly? Only an incompetently wasteful one.

The reason why the universe appears fine-tuned to us is that we are a product of it. If the universe were "tuned" differently, we would be different (probably utterly and incomprehensibly different).

Some people invoke the idea of the multiverse – a possibly infinite number of universes, all slightly different, existing in parallel, and unable to communicate with each other in any way. This hypothesis may be useful as a thought-experiment, but it's unfalsifiable, so of little practical utility. The idea is that there are so many of these parallel universes that all combinations of the values of physical constants will exist, somewhere, however improbable. We just happen to be living in one that contains at least one planet suitable for the evolution of intelligent life.

Here's Douglas Adams on what has become known as the Anthropic Principle:

"...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

(From Biota)

UPDATE 2009-09-10: Click here for AfF #7

AfF #3: Teleological Argument

(Click here for Arguments for Fred #2)

"Teleology" is the study of purpose. In its basic form the teleological argument (the "argument from design") goes thus: with its complex physical laws and underlying structure the universe looks as if it was designed. If it was designed, there must be a purpose behind the design, and therefore there must have been a designer who had an intention - a purpose - when he, she or it designed the universe.

Appearances, however, can be deceptive. Just because the universe looks designed doesn't necessarily mean it was designed by a designer. Charles Darwin showed how the so-called design of life is explained by natural processes. But what about DNA, the digital genetic code that we now know lies at the heart of living cells, orchestrating these natural processes? That code must have come from somewhere. Computer code (whether down-and-dirty machine code, or its more abstract source-code variant) is produced by software developers. But just because computer code is written by computer programmers, we cannot legitimately infer that this is the only process that can produce complex information, digital or otherwise. Look at the Mandelbrot set, for example, which appears to be infinitely complex, yet is generated by a very simple equation.

In logical terms the problem with the design argument is that all conclusive evidence of design we have so far come across is evidence of design by humans. We have no conclusive evidence of design by any other entities, so we cannot extrapolate from what is essentially a sample of one. If the only example of design - where we know beyond doubt who the designer was - is design that we must classify as "human design", we are unable to say which characteristics of human design must necessarily apply to all examples of design.

Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents don't make this distinction; they simply say that if something looks designed, it must have been designed. This is a blinkered, parochial view that owes more to fear of the unknown than to logical consistency.

We don't know where DNA originally came from. We don't know a lot of things, but scientists are working on them, and will continue to do so while there remain things that we don't know. That's what science is about. If science knew everything, there would be no point to scientific inquiry. To quote the late, great Carl Sagan: "Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in."

UPDATE 2009-08-29: Click here for AfF #4