How the Anthropic Principle Defeats Intelligent Design
There’s a lot of talk these days about a “theory” called Intelligent Design. It’s the latest ploy by those who want Creationism taught on par with Evolution. There’s currently a case in federal district court in Pennsylvania deciding whether teaching it as an alternative to Evolution is constitutional; asking essentially whether Of Pandas and People should be on the same intellectual footing as Darwin’s writings or whether that is injecting religion into the mix in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
I have no problem with religion; I am an active member in my church and respect everyone’s right to worship (or not) as they see fit—provided of course that their religion doesn’t encroach upon my freedoms. I mean, I don’t want the Church of the Holy Firecracker practicing outside my bedroom window early on Saturday morning.
Where we depart is when the Intelligent Design folks insist it be taught with Evolution as a theory—noting (correctly) that evolution has some defects to it. This aside, Intelligent Design is not a theory in that it cannot make predictions or be shown through quantifiable evidence.
As I understand it, Intelligent Design is essentially noting the complexity of the universe and extrapolating that such intricate workings must be the hand of a higher power—they don’t say God because that would tip their hand as to their true intentions—but you get the idea.
This is not to say that the existence of life—intelligent life that can contemplate its navel (or blog for that matter—same difference) is not miraculous. It is. It is astounding that our planet is the Goldilocks porridge of the solar system (not to hot, not too cold); protected by a large planet (Jupiter) from incoming Kuiper Belt Objects (read, comets); that the moon creates the rise and fall of the tides; that there’s water and oxygen; or that we’re not so close to the center of our galaxy that we’re bathed in deadly gamma rays. I wouldn’t want to bet on those odds.
Trouble is, there’s time. Stay with me here. The universe is old—fourteen billion and change according to our best estimates. And current cosmology (particularly String Theory and Inflation) seems to indicate that universes can just happen from time to time; that in fact there may be numerous other dimensions floating around outside our observable universe (O-region) with totally different properties. In the lingo—the universes are infinite because space is flat, or continually expanding, but the histories are finite. These are scientific observations made by satellites such as the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer)—not some fanciful declarations. In some other universe you got the girl, won the lottery, or had that shiny, bouncy hair you always wanted. Or, in some other universe, all those factors above which conspired to create the perfect milieu for life to take off didn’t happen. No T-rex, no dogs, no people, no navel gazing.
This is the Anthropic Principle—we see the universe the way it is because if it were different, we wouldn’t be here to see it. It’s the tree falling in the woods argument on steroids. Philosophers call it a truism.
I like this theory because I would like to think that God doesn’t really want to micro manage everything—he’s got better things to do. He’s God after all. If I were going to play God through say, creating an ant farm, I’d like to watch the ants build it themselves, rather than set it up and just watch them wander around in it. Jesus said this,
There’s a lot of talk these days about a “theory” called Intelligent Design. It’s the latest ploy by those who want Creationism taught on par with Evolution. There’s currently a case in federal district court in Pennsylvania deciding whether teaching it as an alternative to Evolution is constitutional; asking essentially whether Of Pandas and People should be on the same intellectual footing as Darwin’s writings or whether that is injecting religion into the mix in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
I have no problem with religion; I am an active member in my church and respect everyone’s right to worship (or not) as they see fit—provided of course that their religion doesn’t encroach upon my freedoms. I mean, I don’t want the Church of the Holy Firecracker practicing outside my bedroom window early on Saturday morning.
Where we depart is when the Intelligent Design folks insist it be taught with Evolution as a theory—noting (correctly) that evolution has some defects to it. This aside, Intelligent Design is not a theory in that it cannot make predictions or be shown through quantifiable evidence.
As I understand it, Intelligent Design is essentially noting the complexity of the universe and extrapolating that such intricate workings must be the hand of a higher power—they don’t say God because that would tip their hand as to their true intentions—but you get the idea.
This is not to say that the existence of life—intelligent life that can contemplate its navel (or blog for that matter—same difference) is not miraculous. It is. It is astounding that our planet is the Goldilocks porridge of the solar system (not to hot, not too cold); protected by a large planet (Jupiter) from incoming Kuiper Belt Objects (read, comets); that the moon creates the rise and fall of the tides; that there’s water and oxygen; or that we’re not so close to the center of our galaxy that we’re bathed in deadly gamma rays. I wouldn’t want to bet on those odds.
Trouble is, there’s time. Stay with me here. The universe is old—fourteen billion and change according to our best estimates. And current cosmology (particularly String Theory and Inflation) seems to indicate that universes can just happen from time to time; that in fact there may be numerous other dimensions floating around outside our observable universe (O-region) with totally different properties. In the lingo—the universes are infinite because space is flat, or continually expanding, but the histories are finite. These are scientific observations made by satellites such as the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer)—not some fanciful declarations. In some other universe you got the girl, won the lottery, or had that shiny, bouncy hair you always wanted. Or, in some other universe, all those factors above which conspired to create the perfect milieu for life to take off didn’t happen. No T-rex, no dogs, no people, no navel gazing.
This is the Anthropic Principle—we see the universe the way it is because if it were different, we wouldn’t be here to see it. It’s the tree falling in the woods argument on steroids. Philosophers call it a truism.
I like this theory because I would like to think that God doesn’t really want to micro manage everything—he’s got better things to do. He’s God after all. If I were going to play God through say, creating an ant farm, I’d like to watch the ants build it themselves, rather than set it up and just watch them wander around in it. Jesus said this,
A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell along the path, and was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air devoured it. And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up it withered away, because it had no moisture. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns grew with it and choked it. And some fell into good soil and grew, and yielded a hundredfold.
Luke 8:5-8, Harper Study Bible, Revised Standard Version, 1962. Can’t this parable be about the different universes in God’s creation, some of which will wither but some of which will grow and prosper?
Another problem I have with Intelligent Design is the notion that we were created perfect. Anyone who has seen a herniated disk knows the spinal column, while working great for a four-legged creature, is not the best of designs for walking upright. And consider this, what has your appendix done for you lately? Your tonsils? These vestigial organs are obviously relicts from some past human design that didn’t make it. And did God not love the Neanderthals?
Why does this bother me then? I got my public education and later went on to obtain three degrees. I’m bothered because this may be the environment where my little girl has to be educated. Everywhere in the world there is strife over religious fundamentalism. I humbly suggest our country is encountering the same tug-o-war. Trying to force a religious viewpoint upon students with no recourse is bad—it’s worse when that viewpoint has no redeeming scientific value. Intelligent Design is not going to lead to the breakthroughs that modern medicine has brought us—it’s not science. It’s dogma. Those that promote it aren’t concerned about the advancement of science, they want to promote God. They just can’t own up to it. Or, as Jesus said,
Another problem I have with Intelligent Design is the notion that we were created perfect. Anyone who has seen a herniated disk knows the spinal column, while working great for a four-legged creature, is not the best of designs for walking upright. And consider this, what has your appendix done for you lately? Your tonsils? These vestigial organs are obviously relicts from some past human design that didn’t make it. And did God not love the Neanderthals?
Why does this bother me then? I got my public education and later went on to obtain three degrees. I’m bothered because this may be the environment where my little girl has to be educated. Everywhere in the world there is strife over religious fundamentalism. I humbly suggest our country is encountering the same tug-o-war. Trying to force a religious viewpoint upon students with no recourse is bad—it’s worse when that viewpoint has no redeeming scientific value. Intelligent Design is not going to lead to the breakthroughs that modern medicine has brought us—it’s not science. It’s dogma. Those that promote it aren’t concerned about the advancement of science, they want to promote God. They just can’t own up to it. Or, as Jesus said,
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?Matthew 7:3, Harper Study Bible, Revised Standard Version, 1962
posted by jemison @ 8:30 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
&idYou may be interested to know it's not the case that "Intelligent Design folks insist it be taught with Evolution as a theory," as you wrote.
The leading "Intelligent Design folks," at Discovery Institute, have published their policy, which says,
“Although we think discussion of intelligent design should not be prohibited, we don't think intelligent design should be required in public schools.
“What should be required is full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory,” added West, “which is the approach supported by the overwhelming majority of the public."
As to the Anthropic Principle defeating ID, I hope you're bearing in mind how speculative it is. Without any evidence whatsoever to back it up at this stage, it really is a matter of faith and of personal taste if you choose to believe it. Nothing more.
You acknowledge this in a way when you say,
"I like this theory because I would like to think that God doesn’t really want to micro manage everything—he’s got better things to do. He’s God after all."
The key words are, "I would like to think."
The God of the Bible reveals himself as one who loves his people and loves to be involved in their lives, so I'm curious where you gained your conception of him as not wanting to be involved in his creation. (I know this love for his people does not specifically address natural history before people arrived on the scene--but I think it does address his willingness to be involved with what he created.)
Then you ask this about the parable of the Sower:
"Can’t this parable be about the different universes in God’s creation, some of which will wither but some of which will grow and prosper?"
If you're going to accept that Jesus told this parable, you really might want to be consistent and accept that he gave the explanation that followed it. Suffice it to say his intent was not to teach about multiple universes, by any creative stretch of imagination.
Tom, I appreciate your comments. My point was this: The Anthropic Principle is based on scientific observations. ID is not.
I'm guilty of using the sower's parable for my own purposes. It was either that or this image: flip a coin one hundred times. You'll get roughly fifty heads and fifty tails. But you may get a stretch of five or even ten heads in a row. Now flip a coin ten thousand times--a billion times (it's okay, I'll wait).
Finished? Okay, now you'll find you may get some stretch of five hundred heads or five thousand heads in a row. "What are the odds?" you may ask? Did Rosencrantz and Guildenstern take over my experiment? Well, the odds are pretty good you'll get this kind of run if you flip a coin a billion times. The problem comes when you just look at that one run of heads or tails and say--"how miraculous! Surely some higher power must be behind this." It's just odds. Like I said, the universe is patient.
I don't know what the Discovery Institute is or whether they consider ID as part of the "full disclosure of scientific evidence for and against Evolution" but the Pennsylvania trial shows the school board wanted to buy copies of "Of Pandas and People" rather than a biology textbook. That certainly seems to me to be pushing to teach it.
The Bible reveals God to love his people sometimes. Job reveals another side. All in all though, I still suspect God loves us enough to want to watch our development rather than dictate it--kind of like the way I don't correct my daughter's perspective in her drawings. The flaws are uniquely hers. God could certainly love us while watching the passage from singularity to galaxies couldn't he?
The Discovery Institute, for your information, is pretty much the home of ID thinking. The leaders of the movement all connect there. What they mean by "full disclosure" is that science should be open about the widely acknowledged empirical weaknesses in evolution. Even Stephen Jay Gould said there are major gaps in the fossil evidence, for example.
You're right--Dover is pushing to teach ID, and that is probably not good policy at this stage of the discussion.
The odds of 500 heads or tails in a row are not good in 1 billion flips. The probability of getting any such series on one trial is about 1 in 1.6 * 10^150 (10 to the 150th power). How small is that number? Take the inverse, 1.6 * 10^150. If every atomic particle in our universe had another universe the same size as ours hidden inside of it, you would have a total number of particles on about that order of magnitude.
Giving it a billion tries doesn't help the odds much. Giving it a billion tries in every one of these mini-universes wouldn't even bring the odds into a reasonable range.
That number is a pretty good one to reference here, though. Bill Dembski sets an extremely high probablistic standard for drawing conclusions for ID. Considering the age of the universe (about 14.5 billion years) and the number of atomic particles in the universe, he computes the number of possible particle interactions to be on the order of 10^150.
(I might be remembering some of this wrong, I don't have the book here with me, but this is approximately what he says. I'm sure the 10^150 number is correct.)
He sets this as the standard for inferring ID from purely probabilistic reasons. That is, if something has a better than 1 in 10^150 chance of having happened by chance, he says let's not call it ID. That still leaves a number of empirical events that should be ascribed to ID, because their probability of happening by chance is even less than this, according to his research.
The book of Job does not reveal a contrary side to God's love at all; it just shows that love is not always what we expect it to be. We get it in our head that we know what's good for us. You have a daughter, so surely you know that a wiser person with more perspective has a different perspective on what love really is.
"I still suspect God loves us enough to want to watch our development rather than dictate it--kind of like the way I don't correct my daughter's perspective in her drawings. The flaws are uniquely hers."
You do guide her in some ways, though, I hope! Sure, God lets us be ourselves! But he also participates in our growth, and he has a desired direction for us, even though he doesn't force us into it.
"God could certainly love us while watching the passage from singularity to galaxies couldn't he?"
Yes. But is that what he did? ID is trying to move the question from mere speculation into something empirically solid. Going back to the point of your post, I'd say ID has a lot better chance of doing that, than anyone has of showing that multiple universes will solve the problems you say it will.
Again, thank you for your opinions Tom. But I don't believe ID is going to ever result in anything empirically solid, any more than it will answer the question of whether the world stood still for Joshua. Also, your statistical references don't account for the enormity of time or the difference between what our observable universe is and the true size. We are limited by the speed of light in what we can observe. How long could universes have come into and gone out of existence before ours? Like I said, the universe is patient. And big, very big...
I really think the point of my post is that I don't want science being diluted for religious reasons. There's a place for the study of religion (and philosophy for that matter) but it's not in the laboratory.
Post a Comment
<< Home