Christian cosmologist says universe not fine-tuned for life: A response

Here's Rob Sheldon again, on the recent paper by Christian cosmologist Don Page on why our universe is not fine-tuned for life:

a) "fine-tuning" is in the eye of the beholder. All Page demonstrates is that his eye is different than yours. Hence the only real question is whether "fine-tuning" exists at all, not what its magnitude is. If it does exist, no matter what its size, then the universe is "special", "indeterminate", and "not necessarily so". So "fine-tuning" is a scientist's placeholder for a philosopher's contingency.

b) "Optimality" is in the mind of the beholder, depending on what the beholder knows. The "optimum" shape for a human is a sphere, if we are trying to achieve 98.6F on a planet that averages 40F. Obviously, we've left a lot out of our calculations, and equally obviously, we will never know if we left out some crucial factor. Thus we never know if our "optimum" solution is global (contains all relevant factors) or local (misses some). Drawing global (e.g., theological) conclusions from some local guess is sheer hubris, and should be laughed to derision.

c) Lambda =10^-122 Planck units means that the observations are only about 122 orders of magnitude off from what theoretical physics would estimate for this number (the Planck units.)

Let that soak in for a moment. Dembski's universal probability bound is 150 orders of magnitude, only slightly greater than this number. The 10^122 ratio of theory/observed has been called the biggest unsolved problem in physics.

It is also orders of magnitude smaller than typical error bars on other physical constants. So distinguishing it from 0.0 is more an article of faith than of science. Therefore making conclusions about revelation (what God did as observed by science) using theology (how God should work as assumed from theory) may be a fine thing for seminarians, but makes lousy science.

I'm on a hobby horse here, but putting assumptions in our method that turn out to determine our conclusions is a no-no that should invalidate a science paper. One of the many ways that peer-review has failed, is that logical nonsense doesn't get flagged any more. Science should be inductive, not deductive, and when our conclusions are contained in our assumptions, we're being deductive.

For Page to conclude that lambda =/= 0, he had to assume a model with Lambda in it to start with. Einstein inserted Lambda to get a steady state universe, and removed it when Lemaitre's expanding universe was shown to be a simpler solution. It has been reinserted to (a) explain a small anomaly with Type Ia supernovae intensities and (b) solve a "flatness" contingency problem. So if we invented it to solve the metaphysical contingency problem [and I purposely discount (a)], we cannot therefore claim that its observed existence solves the contingency problem.

d) The baryon density, which is the middle term of this deductive syllogism that goes from cosmological constant to contingency, is itself another controversial subject. The cosmological constant is all about dark energy, baryon density is all about dark matter, while "fine tuning" is all about contingent creation. Page has managed to combine the three most controversial subjects in cosmology into a logical syllogism and claim some sort of deductive power. This ought to be scientifically humorous.

The more uncertainty we add into model, the more certain our specific model must be wrong (the ratio of actual solutions/possible solutions --> 0). The fact that global warming models do not include clouds, cosmic rays, precipitation, past climate or repeatability does not mean that climate change is inevitable and deniers are being dogmatic. So also the fact that dark energy assumptions change dark matter assumptions which affect contingency assumptions should tell us our conclusions are woefully uncertain and most probably wrong.

Science shows that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design

A friend, Wintery Knight, who probably lives in a place as boring as I do (currently cold and dull much of the time, except for enlivening ideas!), notes

In nature, the values of physical constants, (e.g. - the force of gravity), are set at the instant when the universe is created. Initially, atheists assumed that the constants could be any value, and life would still exist. But the progress of science has shown that if these constants were altered even slightly, then the resulting universe would not permit life. For example, physicist Brandon Carter has shown that if the force of gravity were stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, life-sustaining stars could not exist. While each possible value of the force of gravity is equally unlikely, the vast majority of these possibilities prohibit complex life of any kind. That means that any one value picked at random is as likely as any of the others, but it is overwhelmingly likely that the one picked will not permit life.

And how do atheists respond to the evidence of a universe that is finely-tuned for life? Well, there are two responses I’ve seen. The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e. - the gambler’s fallacy). All these other universes don’t support life. But, lucky us, we just happen to be in the one universe that popped into being out of nothing, and is fine-tuned to an incredible degree for life. What’s that you say? “Wintery! How can we be sure that these other universes even exist?” Why, you just have to have faith, because there is no way of directly observing these other universes. So, to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist, you have to believe in a billions and billions of demons unobservable universes.

My own view is that atheism is dead in the water, except for its political appeal.

If there is no God, everything politicians want to do is okay.

But if there is a God, they better look out that they are not harming his people or his creation, right?

It's not hard to see why lots of people with a big agenda would prefer that there isn't really a God so - conveniently - they can't be caught by human law enforcement, when they do things they know are wrong.

I do not think that the world we live in works that way. Everything they do and everything I do matters. And it will all come back sooner or later.

Also Wintery Knight talks about divine hiddenness - the way in which God reveals himself only somewhat - for good reason.

My sense, as a Catholic Christian, is that God does not want to force people to believe in him. Anyone can see - looking at the history of the world - that people are better off if they believe in God than if they believe in multi gods, ghosts, or superstitions that have never done good for anyone who believed in them.

Many people worldwide have starved who could have been fed, and many have died who could have lived, if only they had access to knowledge. Real knowledge. Of the real world God made. Not worthless propaganda.

This is what I mean by real knowledge. Knowledge that matters.

The universe has the hallmarks of design: And what can anyone do about it?

From British physicist David Tyler:

Ever since the 'anthropic principle' entered the language of science, the case for the universe having the hallmarks of design has become progressively stronger. There is a consensus in the thinking of physicists and cosmologists that far exceeds the alleged consensus about anthropogenic global warming, and also the alleged consensus that natural selection is the mechanism for explaining design in living things. Author Tim Folger elevates the principle to "an extraordinary fact" about the universe: "Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and - in this universe, anyway - life as we know it would not exist."

Folger's article is based on an interview with physicist Andrei Linde, who says: "We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible." Many of these are sketched out for the benefit of readers, and Folger comments: "There are many such examples of the universe's life-friendly properties - so many, in fact, that physicists can't dismiss them all as mere accidents."

If we apply Dembski's design filter approach, we have three avenues to explore: Law, Chance and Design. Law gets very little attention from Folger, despite the intense search for grand Unification Theories (GUT) or Theories of Everything (ToE). The reason is that GUT have not delivered. We cannot explain why the universe is like it is. No progress has been made in showing why the fine-tuning of fundamental constants should be a feature of the physical world. Indeed, the pendulum has swung away from GUT because of the interest in string theory - which has served to underline how extraordinary the evidences of fine-tuning actually are. "[Polchinski and Bousso]calculated that the basic equations of string theory have an astronomical number of different possible solutions, perhaps as many as [10 to the power 1000]. Each solution represents a unique way to describe the universe."

Go here for more.

See also:

Like clouds in our coffee, all these other universes

See also: Major media, imagining themselves sober, think there are many universes, not just double vision.

The Big Bang exploded; seriously, is there room for reasonable skepticism about the Big Bang?

Could God live in an infinite sea of universes? It depends.

Will the cosmic multiverse landscape ensure the triumph of intelligent design?

Now, remind me again why we need multiverse theory in the first place?

Multiverse theory: Replacing the big fix with the sure thing?

Podcast: The argument for design in cosmology

Here

[Discovery Institute] CSC Research Director Bruce Gordon speaks with Casey Luskin about the evidence for cosmic fine-tuning. With this technical discussion, Dr. Gordon explains some of theoretical and mathematical problems with attempts to dodge the evidence for cosmic fine-tuning such as the “multiverse” hypothesis and string theory. Dr. Gordon explains that, in the end, these objections to cosmic design amount to thinly veiled materialist philosophy that are rife with logical contradictions and a fundamental in ability to explain why something, rather than “absolute nothing,” exists.

For “absolute nothing” go here.

See also:

“Does our solar system occupy a unique position in the universe, or just an ordinary one?”

Astronomer argues that we can test whether Earth is fine tuned as a science lab"

Does our solar system occupy a unique position in the universe, or just an ordinary one?

In Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, astronomer Hugh Ross explains,

The solar system holds a special position in the Milky Way, close to (but not exactly at) the co-rotation distance - the one distance from the core where stars orbit the galaxy at the same rate as its spiral arm structure does. A star or planetary system located at the co-rotation distance and between two spiral arms would seemingly remain at that safe place. However, stars and planetary systems exactly at the co-rotation distance would experience a "mean motion resonance," repeated gravitational "kicks" exerted by the galactic arm structure. Such kicks would send the star and its possible planetary system flying out of the habitable zone.

Earth's solar system is located just inside the co-rotation distance. So it is safe from the mean motion resonance. Because the solar system revolves around the galactic center only slightly faster than the galactic arm structure, it crosses the spiral arms only one about every billion years. The last spiral arm crossing occurred 560 to 600 million years ago (just before the Cambrian explosion, when complex animals first came on the scene), so Earth currently resides in the safest possible position).

This protected location is truly exceptional. Not all spiral galaxies are like the Milky Way. In the vast majority, the co-rotation distance and the habitable zone fail to overlap. Not only is there a match for the Milky Way Galaxy, but also the best possible place for a newly forming planetary system to accumulate all the heavy elements and long-lived radioactive isotopes requires for advanced life happens to lie just inside the co-rotation distance." (pp. 68-70)

See also:

"Aussie PM: Cosmic order proves God exists"

Astronomer argues that we can test whether Earth is fine-tuned as a science lab"

Aussie PM: Cosmic order proves God exists

In the Sydney Morning Herald (August 29, 2008), the new Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd is quoted as saying,

... the ordered nature of the cosmos convinces him of the existence of God.

Mr Rudd, a regularly practising Anglican, was on Friday asked on Fairfax Radio in Brisbane to give his single biggest argument in favour of the existence of God.

"As you know I'm a believer and I've never pretended not to be and I respect those who have no religious belief - it's a free country," Mr Rudd said.

"For me, it's ultimately the order of the cosmos or what I describe as the creation.

"You can't simply have, in my own judgment, creation simply being a random event because it is so inherently ordered, and the fact that the natural environment is being ordered where it can properly coexist over time.

Well, based on what I have read, there's a guy whose head has found the right orientation to his shoulders.

Denis Alexander, check your e-mail.

Astronomer argues that we can test whether Earth is fine-tuned as a science lab

At the new Biologic Institute blog, Grove City astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez argues that Earth's unique position as a science lab is related to its fine-tuning for intelligent life. Here's a snippet:

... since the universe is constantly changing, how does its observability change over its history? In short, it offers a relatively brief window of opportunity for doing cosmology, and we happen to find ourselves in that window. In the future, galaxies will be farther apart; Classical Cepheids (an important type of standard candle) will be less common; and the CBR will be fainter as a result of the continuing expansion of the universe. When the universe is a few times its present age, the evidence of the Big Bang will no longer be available for observation. With this realization in mind, Abraham Loeb recently wrote, “The accelerating universe makes the study of cosmology a transient episode… ” [3].

Not only is this the best period in history for doing cosmology, it also seems to be the only period that can sustain living, breathing cosmologists. The early universe was a much more dangerous place, and in the future Sun-like stars and the geologically important radioisotopes will be rarer, both important requirements for intelligent life. So, it seems that the best time for observing is also the best time for observers!

But why should this be so? It isn’t easy to explain this in terms of mere coincidence because, on top of explaining why the universe seems set up for life, we now need to explain why it seems set up for discovery. The simple solution, of course, is the obvious one—that the universe was designed both for intelligent life and for discovery.

Is this idea testable?

I think it is. For instance, if additional examples of the link between life and discovery are found, this will strengthen the thesis, as would additional evidence for known examples. On the other hand, if additional study weakens the examples we have described, or shows them to be wrongly interpreted, then the thesis is weakened.

Read the rest at Biologic Institute. Carl Sagan, wherever you are, check your e-mail.

(Note: The image is from Reasons to Believe.)

This is Gonzalez's book, which expands on the theme: