I think the key thing - from the fact this article was published (in a "reputable" science journal) - is it provides an example (not a good example to follow, but others likely will) of how statistical (in particular, Bayesian) arguments can be used to deduce "design" (in effect, reject Darwinism),- in the way this article formulates it in its probability model.
@philipthrift On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 7:30:15 AM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 7:44 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> *Journal of Theoretical Biology* >>> *Volume 501, 21 September 2020* >>> *Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular >>> machines and systems* >>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071 >>> >> >>> * A science journal publishes an article supporting Intelligent Design.* >> >> >> I don't see how. If the universe really is fine-tuned (a very big if) >> then an explanation for that fine-tuning needs to be found, but the God >> Hypothesis is a very poor explanation for two reasons. >> >> 1) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God created the universe. >> 2) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God came into existence >> other than to say He has always existed, but if you're going to do that >> you might as well just say the universe always existed and save a step. >> >> It seems to me that when a mystery is found, and Science has plenty, a >> good honest "I don't know" would be a better response to it than offering a >> theory that is obviously silly. >> >> John K Clark >> > > The issue is whether fine tuning means a fine tuner. A fine tuner is a > necessary condition, but probably not sufficient. In the multiverse setting > there may be a vast array of cosmologies and one could argue that just as > Earth is one of many planets with the right conditions for life, this > cosmology is in a Goldilocks situation. It is also possible I think that > many of these other cosmologies are off-shell conditions in a cosmological > path integral. Cosmologies with larger vacuum energy densities may not be > physically real, but quantum amplitudes off-shell from a physical > cosmology. This may reduce the number of actual physical cosmologies, and > that could mean just one. In this second situation there is some condition > in the structure of quantum cosmology that selects exclusively for this > cosmology. > > LC > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5878ee04-5e19-44f9-9cdb-b5cedfc38cb3n%40googlegroups.com.
