Posts Tagged ‘Intelligent Design’

Anthropic Principle vs. Creationism vs. Intelligent Design

September 29, 2019

The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes the universe. The physical conditions that enabled the creation of the universe are very precise. Absent these conditions there would be no universe for humans to observe much less live in.

The strong anthropic principle (SAP) states that this is the case because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it.

The weak anthropic principle (WAP) states that the universe’s fine tuning is the result of selection bias (survivor bias) in that only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting on the matter. Most often these arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection (our observation of only this universe, compatible with our life) could occur.

Understand that what is being presented in this post is an enormous simplification of this issue. If interested, go to the Wikipedia and proceed from there.

However, it is hoped that enough has been written to compare the strong anthropic principle (SAP) with creationism and intelligent design.

It seems that creationists could adopt the SAP arguing that God is necessary for these conditions to occur, hence God is the creator of the universe. Although it is unlikely that most physicists would agree with this argument, creationists might argue that the law of parsimony (the simplest explanation is the best) argues for the SAP.

However, proponents of intelligent design could not employ this argument. Previous healthy memory blog posts have pointed to the flaw in intelligent design. Although one can find specific examples of intelligent design within nature, there are many more examples of failed species who died out and did not survive. So to argue for intelligent design one needs to accept a flawed entity or one who needs to learn by doing.

It would be good to teach the two anthropic principles along with creationism and intelligent design. The goal would not be to force students regarding what to believe, but rather to provide information on how science proceeds.

Unfortunately, there are many times when religions make war upon science. This is unfortunate. A religious leader who has an enlightened view of science is the Dalai Lama. He uses science to inform his religion. He sends his priests to seminars and schools to become well versed in science.

The problem with wars between science and religion is that science ultimately wins. The reason for this is that science changes as data and logic indicate. Unfortunately, dogmatic religions ultimately lose and humanity and civilization suffer.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Science

April 18, 2018

Dr. Pinker argues in “Enlightenment Now” that the greatest accomplishment of our species is science. HM strongly agrees with this statement. It is certainly responsible for our standard of living. Most of the progress documented by Dr. Pinker would not have occurred without science. This being the case, what could possibly be the problem.

One problem comes from religions who believe scriptures that are clearly wrong and deny Science. The Amish do this, but HM admires the Amish in that they adopt, for the most part, a standard of living commensurate to their ignorance of science. However, most accept the fruits of science while denying scientific findings.

Perhaps the best example of this is their denial of evolution and their embracement of intelligent design. Unfortunately, too many people argue against teaching intelligent design in schools, and for the teaching of evolutionary theory. HM dislikes this because science should not be taught as dogma. Moreover, comparing intelligent design with evolutionary design provides a good means of illustrating the essence of science.

Intelligent design cherry picks species that they argue could only be done by the hand of God. One can easily find living species that make one wonder why they were created, but it is the dead and extinct species that are most informative. What are they? Failures of God? Did God screw up millions to times trying develop the remaining species? What explains them? Don’t they point to an evolutionary process? And what about geological data? Those data, that came to us through many years of research by the more intelligent of our species is to be ignored because of what is said in the bible?

The conflict between science and religion is unnecessary. HM believes in God and there are many religions that do not claim for the literal interpretation of the bible. When there is good scientific data, that should be believed rather than some religious scripture. The Dalai Lama provides a good example. He uses science to inform his religion. And he sends his followers to learn science.

The disrespect of science among American right-wing politicians has led even stalwarts (such as Bobby Jindal) to disparage their own Republican party as the “party of the stupid.” This reputation grew out of policies set in motion during George W. Bush’s administration including the encouragement of the teaching of intelligent design in lieu of evolution, and a shift from the longstanding practice of seeking advice from disinterested scientific panels to stacking the panels with congenial ideologues, may of whom promoted flaky ideas (such as that abortion causes breast cancer) while denying well-supported ones (such as condoms preventing sexually transmitted diseases).

The highest point of this stupidity has been reached with the Incompetent who is currently serving as the President of the United States. Not only is he not using science and denying science, but he is both making scientific information difficult to access and even destroying scientific information.

Dr. Pinker makes every effort to be fair. He notes that there are those on the left of the political spectrum who have stoked panics about overpopulation, nuclear power, and genetically modified organisms. It is important that these potential problems be brought to public attention, but people must do their own reading to get a more balanced understanding of the issues.

There are many criticisms of science that are just irrelevant. One is reductionism. Reductionism is not the aim of all science. Some areas of research employ reductionism. But at different levels, new processes emerge. And research areas are designed for particular areas that emerge at different levels. So one can study neuroscience, but then others study the processes that emerge from neuroscience, such as cognition.

There are also criticisms of science by intellectuals. Frankly, HM attributes most of these criticisms as intellectual jealousy. Although their studies might be interesting, they are not that relevant to the rest of society, and do not contribute much to public welfare.

Regarding public welfare and political disagreements, a scientific approach should be embraced. When a problem is identified and there is disagreement about how to deal with the problem a scientific approach is recommended. Design a study to evaluate the alternative approaches. This could also provide the data for the possible quantification of the magnitude of the benefit or problem, depending on what is being studied. Do not argue “I believe.” Beliefs should be left at home. Points should be argued with logic and data.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith andhealthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.