Re: Evolution and Creationism

[Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

Resonse for item (2)

> 2)
> > Most sets of fundamental constants would lead to a universe
> > in which life could not exist.  Therefore, the fundamental
> > constants of the universe must have been fine-tuned by a
> > creator who wished to bring man into existence.

This comment refers to something known as the "Anthropic Principle", which
loosely states that the laws of nature, and values of physical constants,
and properties of particles etc etc, must be such that they would allow
sentient observers to be present in the universe.

Assuming we agree that we constitute sentient observers  :-)

I.e. they must be compatible with our existence.

I find the thought intriguing, but of limited scientific predictive value.
It does lead one to think carefully about numerical values constants,
implications of models, etc, in the sense that they shouldn't violate the
anthropic principal, at least over time-scales of the age of the Universe.

It also leads one to some interesting philosophical and religious debates;
but I doubt that it proves one or the other arguements in the debate.
Something akin to laws of Rauber family interaction must be compatible with
my being a physics teacher at the moment (and other aspects of my life); but
probably doesn't prove one way or the other whether or not my parents ruined
my life or improved it by providing an environment where I became a
physicist.

Joel Rauber