The Fine-Tuning Argument: A Ball at the base of a Mountain

[Senor Hoint]

We do not know now how many interactions there are that could conceivably result in life.
If there have been 10^100 such interactions since time began, and the odds are 1 in 10^200, then the odds are still absurdly low that the particular explanation is correct.
In either case, this is the right question to ask. We need to pursue a better understanding of the probability to help us determine the viability of our proposed explanation.

The problem with this is, evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life. If we are discussing the emergence of life in the first place, then I will grant your point has more validity. The evidence in favor of evolution, on the other hand, is so overwhelming that even if it were determined that evolution had a 1 in a billion probability of being true, it would still be true. An explanation that is unsatisfactory because of its improbability, but which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, is still the correct explanation.

The WRONG approach is to say "this is how it is, so no matter how unlikely our explanation must be right".

But I'm not taking this approach. I'm saying that those who do claim the explanation is "unlikely," and thus unsatisfactory, have an incomplete understanding of the concepts involved.

Well, we aren't sure how many "tornadoes have gone through junkyards". It might be improbable... it might be nearly inevitable.

Given enough tornadoes, enough time, and enough junkyards (with the proper components), you would be correct. The probability of a tornado roaring through a junkyard full of old trains and assembling a jet, we can safely say is zero. Given infinite time, though, anything that is physically possible will happen.

I don't see why. Both are based on apparent "randomness" depending on very specific conditions. The biggest difference is the much higher unknown element in former case.

I could feel I wasn't wording this correctly as I was typing it. There is an obvious pattern in the dice situation. Not so with life. The "watchmaker" argument is not valid because life isn't a "watch," we only view it as such because of our egocentric perspective and overactive agency-detection hardware. Humans are excellent at seeing patterns, even if they aren't really there. We can speak of evolutionary pathways, not because they exist but because we are able to invent them.

Yet if 999,999,999 can't result in life and only one of those outcomes can, then clearly the outcome of interest is far less probable than all alternatives.

The outcome that would allow life is not less probable than any of the other outcomes. Again, we may view it as such because we ARE life, but that doesn't make it so. The outcome of interest is not inherently of interest, it is of interest because we are interested in it. I could just as easily point to any of the other outcomes that don't allow life and say the same thing (ie there is a 1-in-6 chance the die will land on 3, and a 5-in-6 chance it will land on some number other than 3). This doesn't mean it is more like to land on 5 than on 3.

Yes, though I've also heard it applied to the specific conditions of Earth (temperature, atmosphere, magnetic field, etc)

This argument is obviated by the size of the universe in the same way that the physical-constants argument is obviated by many-worlds.

[truthreality]

At the end of the day a creationist and/or IDer must be willing to believe that mankind was the intended goal of nature when life first appeared on this planet.

As a creationist I would agree 100% that humankind was the intended creation of this earth.

This only works if there's a guiding hand behind nature, something to ensure nature's "goal" of mankind is achieved.

Who is to say that such a guiding hand does not exist? I view the material universe as a machine. Like any machine an operator is necessary. In this scenario, who is more important the machine or the operator? Any intelligent person would say the operator is. The machine does not work until the operator directs it.

Unless a person is a young-Earth creationist, this requires believing that every condition present on the planet 4 billion years ago was intentionally created to ensure that one day man would emerge.

Yes. The earth was created to be compatible with human life.

Intelligent Design would imply that even before the planet formed humankind was the intended outcome of every galaxy, every supernova, every galactic entity.

While humans may be the ultimate life form are they present throughout the entire universe? I don't know. It is quite possible that there are other forms of life that are not human. How would we know? Our understanding of the universe is in its infancy. Scientists like Stephen Hawking state that there is a high probability of life on other planets but that life may not necessarily be human.

Those who don't buy into that fantastic speculation accept the very real possibility, the conclusion uncontested by natural evidence, that humans are simply a late lifeform on this planet who arose because of a combination of evolution and favorable physical conditions.

If this is the case why do lower species still exist? Shouldn't they have evolved? Humans are an incredibly sophisticated species. How did such sophistication come by such a simple process?

Take the intellect for example. The intellect is what separates us from animals, even animals with intelligence such as Dolphins. How did such a complex and sophisticated mechanism evolve simply adaptation and favorable physical conditions? I don't think such a combination is capable of creating such a brilliant instrument as the intellect.

The odds that we would have evolved from the line of primates has the same odds that any other animal on the planet evolved from its predecessors.

Yes the odds that we evolved from primates is very slim.

[el ايمان]

Yes the odds that we evolved from primates is very slim.

Since humans did in fact evolve from primates, your statement is inaccurate. It's like looking at a hard-boiled egg and saying, "The chance that this was once a raw egg is very slim".

[Jack]

...humans may be the ultimate life form...The intellect is what separates us from animals...

We aren't separate from animals, that's an unscientific and unfounded religious belief. We are animals. Biology classifies us as mammals. If the religious do not consider us mammals then what other biological classification applies, avian, reptilian, amphibian?

Intelligence is a metric we humans value even though it's of dubious value. Our "intelligence" has given us the means to destroy all life on Earth in seconds. It's a blessing with a built-in curse. It's difficult to define and measure. It's a poor metric to rely on in determining human superiority.

If this is the case why do lower species still exist? Shouldn't they have evolved?

If jet airplanes exist why are there still propeller-driven planes? Evolution produces modifications, not replacements. To reasonably debate evolution one ought to at least posses a basic understanding of what evolution is.

Humans are an incredibly sophisticated species. How did such sophistication come by such a simple process?

I don't know how you can characterize evolution as a "simple" process when you've just provided evidence of no understanding of how evolution works. Without understanding how evolution works why would you doubt it can produce a "sophisticated" species? What do you consider a sophisticated species? Ants and bees exhibit complex behaviors as do bacteria and viruses. If by "sophisticated" you mean complex then we aren't any more sophisticated than a host of other living things.

I don't think such a combination is capable of creating such a brilliant instrument as the intellect.

An unsubstantiated opinion. What anyone thinks doesn't count for much in science. What evidence supports your contention? Can you show scientifically that evolution couldn't produce humans?

[truthreality]

Since humans did in fact evolve from primates, your statement is inaccurate. It's like looking at a hard-boiled egg and saying, "The chance that this was once a raw egg is very slim".

Even a Darwinist would not make such a claim. Darwinists agree among each other that we evolved from a common ancestor. This common ancestor is unknown. Humans may share a common ancestor with primates but that does not mean they evolved from them. There is a big difference.

[Senor Hoint]

Even a Darwinist would not make such a claim. Darwinists agree among each other that we evolved from a common ancestor. This common ancestor is unknown. Humans may share a common ancestor with primates but that does not mean they evolved from them. There is a big difference.

False, we did indeed evolve from primates. The original proto-primate was a creature that resembled today's lemurs more than anything else. Great apes diverged from monkeys and lemurs first, and then only around 7 million years ago hominids diverged from the other great apes.

As a creationist I would agree 100% that humankind was the intended creation of this earth.

Humans have been around for only ~200,000 years. Dinosaurs dominated for several hundred million. Indeed, from a teleological perspective it is much more likely that the Earth was created for bacteria, which have been around for nearly 4 billion years, and make up the vast majority of the planet's biomass. There are more bacterial cells in your own body than there are human cells.

Who is to say that such a guiding hand does not exist? I view the material universe as a machine. Like any machine an operator is necessary. In this scenario, who is more important the machine or the operator? Any intelligent person would say the operator is. The machine does not work until the operator directs it.

Except that machines are built to accomplish tasks. What task does the universe accomplish? Supporting humans? Why is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe so inhospitable to humans that we would die in a matter of moments? Why did it take ~14 billion years for humans to arise?

Yes. The earth was created to be compatible with human life.

~70% of the Earth's surface is inhospitable ocean.

While humans may be the ultimate life form are they present throughout the entire universe? I don't know. It is quite possible that there are other forms of life that are not human. How would we know? Our understanding of the universe is in its infancy. Scientists like Stephen Hawking state that there is a high probability of life on other planets but that life may not necessarily be human.

How is this an argument supporting your position? If anything the presence of vastly diverse lifeforms would strike another blow against the idea that the universe was created for us (which is perhaps the ultimate arrogance).

If this is the case why do lower species still exist? Shouldn't they have evolved? Humans are an incredibly sophisticated species. How did such sophistication come by such a simple process?

"Lower" in what sense? Humans, again, have only been around for about 200,000 years. Give us another couple hundred million and these arguments might hold some water. Evolution is not a linear process. Species diversify and fulfill ecological niches which depend on the physical conditions of the Earth and on the other species that exist. Calling humans the "higher" species simply is not warranted by anything other than our own arrogance.

[grandpa]

False, we did indeed evolve from primates.
The original proto-primate was a creature that resembled today's
lemurs more than anything else.

If you look at this debate, it partly hinges on a certain misunderstanding. Creationists look at evolutuionist claims and say, "Hey! I'm not a monkey in a zoo! You're crazy!" Of course, no one is saying we are not different from other primates in major ways. We are. At the same time, we're similar in some fairly major ways.

The example I had in mind slipped from grasp, though, because my arms spontaneously evolved into crab legs (I'm typing now through a sophisticated beak-like apparatus).

Grandpa h.

[theophilus]

Except that machines are built to accomplish tasks. What task does the universe accomplish? Supporting humans? Why is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe so inhospitable to humans that we would die in a matter of moments? Why did it take ~14 billion years for humans to arise?

The reason most of the universe is so inhospitable is that it wasn't intended for humans. Only the earth was.

The heavens are the LORD's heavens, but the earth he has given to the children of man.
(Psalm 115:16 ESV)

And we don't know it took 14 billion years for humans to arise. The measurements that show the universe is old all assume that the universe developed entirely by means of the same natural processes we see going on now. If that assumption is incorrect and it was created by God there is no way we can measure its age accurately.

The earth was created to be compatible with human life.

~70% of the Earth's surface is inhospitable ocean.

But that ocean is necessary to maintain the conditions humans need to survive.

[Senor Hoint]

The reason most of the universe is so inhospitable is that it wasn't intended for humans. Only the earth was.

Why did God create the rest of it then?

And we don't know it took 14 billion years for humans to arise. The measurements that show the universe is old all assume that the universe developed entirely by means of the same natural processes we see going on now. If that assumption is incorrect and it was created by God there is no way we can measure its age accurately.

What you are proposing would overthrow much of physics and chemistry. The processes governing the methods by which the measurements are taken are quite well-understood.

But that ocean is necessary to maintain the conditions humans need to survive.

Why was the supposedly-omnipotent God bound to follow the rules of physics of our universe? Why did he need to create all of this other stuff to maintain humanity? It doesn't make any sense.

[Void Serpent]

and we don't know it took 14 billion years for humans to arise. The measurements that show the universe is old all assume that the universe developed entirely by means of the same natural processes we see going on now. If that assumption is incorrect and it was created by God there is no way we can measure its age accurately.

We use light as our measurement. The Observable Universe is 14billion light years in radius. Which means light has traveled for 14billion years, at least, for us to see it now. Even if there were a deity that created everything as it is where it is, it would still take 14billion years for us to see anything that was 14billion light years away. So the observable universe is at least 14billion years old.

[LetThereBe]

The problem with this is, evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life. If we are discussing the emergence of life in the first place, then I will grant your point has more validity. The evidence in favor of evolution, on the other hand, is so overwhelming that even if it were determined that evolution had a 1 in a billion probability of being true, it would still be true. An explanation that is unsatisfactory because of its improbability, but which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, is still the correct explanation.

Probability is based on unknowns. A coin flips is not truly random, it just seems to be since we don't have a good idea of exactly how much force applied in such a way will generate a given amount of angular velocity on the mass.
If there are so few unknowns that something is considered a near certainty... then I wouldn't really call it improbable to begin with.

Anyway, I was never arguing against evolution. I was merely bringing it up as an example where scientists (rightly) do not say "here we are, so I guess it happened via this unlikely method".

But I'm not taking this approach. I'm saying that those who do claim the explanation is "unlikely," and thus unsatisfactory, have an incomplete understanding of the concepts involved.

Then we are in agreement. I am arguing against the OP, where someone finds a soccer ball and assumes that it took some absurdly unlikely course down the mountain... when there are countless other possibilities. "Here it is, so it must have happened by this unlikely explanation based on current understanding" is terrible reasoning.

The outcome that would allow life is not less probable than any of the other outcomes. Again, we may view it as such because we ARE life, but that doesn't make it so. The outcome of interest is not inherently of interest, it is of interest because we are interested in it. I could just as easily point to any of the other outcomes that don't allow life and say the same thing (ie there is a 1-in-6 chance the die will land on 3, and a 5-in-6 chance it will land on some number other than 3). This doesn't mean it is more like to land on 5 than on 3.

Let us say instead that it is the outcome of interest because that is the way it is then.
To go back to the evolution example. Let us pretend that we have absolutely no understanding of natural selection... it is theoretically possible that hundreds of genetic mutations could take place in a single generation that would turn an ancient amphibian into a modern bird. Perhaps every "transition species" was actually a direct ancestor from this one amphibian that would just undergo hundreds of beneficial mutations in a single generation time and time again. This is absurdly unlikely.
...but it isn't really any less unlikely than any other individual outcome that WOULDN'T have given rise to modern life. Maybe this is one in 10^100 that life would be generated this way such that we observe it now, but why should we attach significance to this particular outcome?
Saying "it turned out this way so the unlikely explanation is fine" isn't the way science thinks. Science sees that this is not a reasonable explanation for how things came to be... and instead found a mechanism, natural selection, that eliminates this hurdle of astronomic improbability.

This argument is obviated by the size of the universe in the same way that the physical-constants argument is obviated by many-worlds.

Again, this comes down to too many unknowns. We don't know how many potentially habitable worlds there are in the universe. We don't know if there can be multiple universes. We don't know if the idea of different physical constants even makes sense.

[LetThereBe]

We use light as our measurement. The Observable Universe is 14billion light years in radius. Which means light has traveled for 14billion years, at least, for us to see it now. Even if there were a deity that created everything as it is where it is, it would still take 14billion years for us to see anything that was 14billion light years away. So the observable universe is at least 14billion years old.

Would it really be beyond a deity that can create matter from nothing to also create photons starting some distance between their "source" and destination?