jim guinee wrote:
Apologists for the ID argument will no doubt cite (among others)
Polkinghorne,
theoretical physicist and colleague of Stephen Hawking, who writes:
"In the early expansion of the universe, there has to been a close
balance between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the
force of gravity (pulling things together). If expansion dominated
then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies
and stars to take place.(The possibility of our existence) requires a
balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a
very early epoch in the universe's history (The Planck time) has to
differ from equality by not more than 1 in 1060 . The numerate
(mathematical) will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the
non-numerate, I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davies of what
that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a
target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe,
twenty thousand million light years away, and hitting the mark."
[One World (London: SPCK, 1986), p.57]
I view with bemusement the phrase "colleague of Stephen Hawking". It's
not even the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority', it is 'appeal to
someone who knew an authority'.
When Polkinghorne says, "...it is the same as aiming at a target an inch
wide..." it is anthropomorphizing a natural process, which is what ID
proponents want to do. It would be interesting to know what
Polkinghorne would think of that use. For obvious reasons, we have no
way of knowing how many universes have existed which did not result in
stars, planets, and life. I would relate this to a more down-to-earth
low-probability event, winning the lottery. It is like saying that
winning is such a low-probability event the winner could only have won
by having an 'intelligently designed' lottery ticket. 'Low probability'
is not the same as 'impossible to occur by chance'.
I can't speak for Polkinghorne's intent, but I suspect that using his
statement to support ID would be a minor example of what Rosenhouse was
referring to in "Why Do Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing With ID
Proponents?"
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/designers.html
--
-- Rick Stevens
-- Psychology Department
-- University of Louisiana at Monroe
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
