The Beauty of Science which Young Earth Creationists miss, The Anthropic Principle Reconsidered

For instance: when Hawking first wrote about the Anthropic Principle, he and other cosmologists were focused on why gravity is weak enough to allow the Universe to expand for billions of years yet just strong enough to allow galaxies, stars, and planetary systems to form. At the time they thought its tuning had a tolerance of about 0.5 percent. Since then, however, physicists have been astonished to find that the Cosmological Constant — the mysterious pushback that just ever-so-slightly counters gravity’s inward rush — is just strong enough, no more and no less, to a precision of more than a hundred decimal places. No one has been able to deduce any physical reason why it should be as it is. The Anthropic Principle is here to stay.

via Clay Farris Naff: Are We the Reason for the Universe’s Existence? The Anthropic Principle Reconsidered.

You just have to read the entire article. Much of this is covered in scientific detail in ]], but nevertheless, it is worth being reminded of the philosophy inherent in such things.

You Might Also Like

3 Replies to “The Beauty of Science which Young Earth Creationists miss, The Anthropic Principle Reconsidered”

  1. I wouldn’t put much store by the Anthropic Principle. “No one has been able to deduce any physical reason why it should be as it is” should be qualified with a big “YET”. No one has been able to put together a consistent theory of quantum gravity, or explain why neutrinos appear to travel faster than light – YET. But I suspect that when theoretical physicists do find an elegant solution to problems like these, it will also require the Cosmological Constant to be exactly as it is, to a hundred decimal places. Does that mean that God didn’t create the universe? By no means! It just shows the wonder of his creation and of the system of logic and scientific law behind it.

  2. I wouldn’t put much store by the Problem of Evil, Divine Hiddenness, or any other atheistic objections to theism. No one has been able to deduce any solutions to those objections “YET”. . . . But I suspect . . .

    [Spot the fallacy to this, and the foregoing?]

  3. Just remember, that there is a strong and a weak anthropic principle. One has to do with our earth being in a goldilocks situation (weak). This is a no-brainer, even atheists agree on it. Since we exist as observers, we obviously are in a Goldilock zone. The other has to do with the actual constants in the universe being optimized. The only explaination for that is the “almost infinite” number of universes, or something unexplained yet. One “something” is God, especially if there is a limited (not infinite) number of universes.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.