The Anthropic Fantasy–part 1
Professor Dawkins notes that creationists are eager to find gaps in the evolution process, where scientific evidence is lacking for Dawrin’s theory, and then argue from there that God (as if by default) must be the creator and designer behind complex life. Dawkins sees this as a lack of imagination (The God Delusion, 128).
Lack of Imagination?? (Wouldn’t an atheist, from their naturalist perspective, normally accuse a creationist—who believes in ‘crazy’ Bible stories and miracles—of having TOO MUCH imagination?) This is very interesting.
Dawkins introduces the anthropic principle to address the large gap between the origin of life and the process of natural selection. When we apply this principle to explain the origin of life, we observe and appreciate all the many precise details that need to come into play in order for life to happen. Dawkins describes a number of these particulars…our distance and orbit around the sun, the gravitational force of Jupiter to grab threatening asteroids that would otherwise destroy us, etc (135-136). To the question “Why do I exist on Earth?” the anthropic principle notes that the very asking of the question requires that we first of all exist, and the fact of our existence on Earth shows that Earth is friendly to our kind of life. The answer: “We exist on Earth because Earth allows for our existence.”
Dawkins presents the anthropic principle as magical statistics.
It has been estimated that there are between 1 billion and 30 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Knocking off a few naughts for reasons of ordinary prudence, a billion billion is a conservative estimate of the number of available planets in the universe. Now suppose the origin of life…really was quite a staggering improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets….even with such absurdly long odds, life would still have arisen on a billion planets—of which Earth, of course, is one (138-139).
Between 1 and 30 billion planets? I find it truly amazing that anyone can even begin to count them. And to count GALAXIES even! Napoleon, like there’s anyway you can even do that. Pull a number out of hat, then “knock off a few naughts”…and what do we have? A made up number that means NOTHING!
After we find our magic number we can start supposing things. Let’s suppose really ridiculous odds for the origin of life, (but not odds so ridiculous that it would be unreasonable). Let’s keep the statistics generous enough to support evolution or else our theory will fail. Where are they coming up with these fantastical variables?
Abra Kadabra and BANG! (cue poof of smoke) we exist! Is this really science?? Or is it fantasy? I can see now why Dawkins would accuse the creationist of lacking an imagination.
It gets even more confusing. After first refusing to acknowledge chance for the reason we are here, the theory of evolution necessitates pure LUCK to initiate life. Are we going in circles here?
We can deal with the unique origin of life by postulating a very large number planetary opportunities. Once that initial stroke of luck has been granted—and the anthropic principle most decisively grants it to us—natural selection takes over: and natural selection is emphatically not a matter of luck (Dawkins, 140).
Why do we exist? No reason…it just happened, that’s all. Lucky for us.
I am having a terrible time taking this seriously…maybe I lack imagination. Either I seriously misunderstand this theory or it really is a fantasy.
31 May 2009 at 9:49 am
Why do we exist? No reason…it just happened, that’s all. Lucky for us.
So matter of fact-like, and yet, quite possibly, so very wrong…
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
31 May 2009 at 1:53 pm
Island: Thank you for reading and commenting.
Dawkins himself employs the “initial stroke of luck” to spark life. If luck is the first ultimate cause, then everything that follows thereafter is wholly dependent on luck. The law of causality demands it. An effect cannot exist without a cause. Remove the cause and you remove the effects that follow. We exist first of all because we’re lucky.
If this is inaccurate, please help me to understand it correctly.
31 May 2009 at 2:25 pm
Hi rostock,
Well, if the scientists who wrote the article that I referenced are correct, then luck had nothing to do with it, because we are born of necessity, and were in the cards from the moment that the matter field got laid down at the time of the big bang.
Also, the anthropic physics indicates that the universe is “bio-oriented” to produce carbon-based life over a specific region and time in the history of the universe, which indicates that there is a biocentirc cosmological principle in effect that connects life to the structure mechanism of the universe, so if the scientists that wrote the article are correct, (and I believe that they are), then we are talking about an entropic anthropic cosmological principle.
Dawkins would never recognize this fact because he only gives credence to the weak interpretation, even though this assumption is not apparent in the physics. That’s because he only sees god in such an interpretation, so his own religious dogma prevents him from facing reality, and this is why:
http://www.ontheknol.com/frontpage-knol/the-anthropic-principle
2 June 2009 at 2:28 am
Hello Island,
Thank you for the quick reply. I think I must be blind because I completely overlooked the article you linked in your first comment.
I need to take time to read both articles to learn more about your position. I’m a slow reader and about to have a baby very very soon…so please have patience. This could take awhile. Please do not think I am ignoring your comment.
2 June 2009 at 3:02 pm
That’s okay, take your time… and take care of that baby!…