Laetoli footprints (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, April 15, 2010, 23:21 (5145 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: If one wants to argue numbers, David is absolutely right on this point: Given this universe as the ONLY universe, the chain of events leading up to where life could begin is something like winning the lottery every day of your life until you died.-It seems, then, that the only way to surmount the virtually impossible odds against life-by-chance is if there are other universes. Yet another great leap of faith. It would be interesting to know if George, as our resident materialist-atheist, believes in other universes. If not, what would he make of those odds? Personally, I'd put the multiverse theory on the same level of faith as an eternal God and a chance-assembled DNA. Fence-sitting as usual!-You continue: "So if there is incredibly intense control over the universe ... it clearly happened at this point." (The point of the big bang, or the period during which the universe settled into its current state, i.e. the aftermath of the big bang?) "I don't mean to say that life's complexity "simply can't be designed", but that the level of control needed to get the universe to just the right mix of energy density requires a helluva lot more effort..." I'd have thought the more effort required to get the right mix, the less likelihood there would be of chance achieving it.*** The argument that "current quantum theory" doesn't allow for the control needed by a designer still doesn't increase our chances of "winning the lottery every day". Does it shorten the odds in favour of the multiverse theory? I don't see how. All I can see is a confusion of unproven and probably unprovable theories or, as you said in your post of 14 April at 22.32, "mere speculation, however educated we may think it."-You began your post as follows: "We have extremely accurate physical descriptions and models that surround both "Many Worlds" and "Consistent Histories." We have explicit phenomenon that can be predicted with 100% accuracy: name a formulation of design that can claim THAT!"-One doesn't usually hear pin-point accuracy used as an argument in favour of chance and against design. The whole theory of Intelligent Design rests on intricate mechanisms that work. Antony Flew (who incidentally died on 8 April) was converted from radical atheism to belief in design because of the impossibility of believing that DNA could come about by chance.*** Any formulation of design will emphasize explicit phenomena that can be predicted with 100% accuracy. Imagine the effects if the Earth went out of orbit, or the sun became unstable, or sperm ceased to fertilize eggs. That life and our universe are a mixture of the predictable and the unpredictable is something I'm sure we agree on, but I really can't see the logic of claiming that what is predictable provides evidence of chance as opposed to design. However, I don't know enough about the MW and CH hypotheses to debate them with you. I only know that there is no consensus among scientists, which suggests that you'll continue to keep me company on the fence. -*** I've just read David's post and the article he has recommended. Both he and it make this point much more convincingly than I can.