The Anthropic Principle

 by Laurence D Smart B.Sc.Agr., Dip.Ed., Grad.Dip.Ed

Email: laurence_smart@hotmail.com

Webpage: www.geocities.com/Athens/5572

[Free to print and distribute. Copy must be in full.]

  

The Unique Earth

(1) For a long time scientists have known that the earth is a unique place.

(a) Earth's distance from the sun keeps the temperature at a level suitable for life. The average temperature lies in the very narrow band where water is a liquid (0-100ºC), compared to the temperature range of -273ºC to >6,000,000ºC for the remainder of the universe.

(b) Earth's nearly circular orbit keeps the yearly temperature variations to relatively small values.

(c) Earth's magnetic field eliminates most of the lethal solar radiation entering the atmosphere.

(d) Earth's upper atmosphere filters out X-ray radiation from the sun.

(e) Earth's Ozone layer filters out most of the ultra violet radiation.

(f) Earth's axial tilt is perfect. If it were any smaller, more of the surface would be lost to ice caps or equatorial deserts. If it were larger, greater portions of the surface would have 6 months of darkness and 6 months of light. Fewer places would be habitable.

(g) Earth's mass, density, radius, rate of spin, weather systems, atmospheric pressure and chemical make-up all produce the unique conditions that allow life forms to survive.

(h) Earth has an abundance of water, matching the high water content of living things.

(i) Earth's water is unique. It is the only chemical that expands when it solidifies. This means that the frozen water at the ice caps floats, rather than sinks. If ice sank when it formed, more and more ocean water would freeze to ice so that the polar seas and beyond would be a solid block of ice.

(2) Even the planets either side of Earth have conditions unsuitable for life.

(3) All these unique characteristics of Earth point to an intelligent designer, not to evolution.

(4) Evolutionists have countered this argument by hypothesizing that the universe is full of planets, and Earth just happened to have the correct formula for life, by chance.

(5) This explains the avid quest by evolutionists to discover other planets in the universe.

 

The Unique Universe

(1) Scientific discoveries in recent decades have also shown that the universe itself has a number of characteristics that are essential for life.

(2) The universe's fundamental parameters seem to have been finely tuned to make life possible.

(a) The charges and masses of atomic particles are exact.

(b) Atomic forces are exact, within a very fine tolerance.

(c) Electromagnetism and gravitational attraction are fine-tuned. [W.J. ReMine p:59]

(d) To the evolutionist, the expansion rate of the universe had to have been exact.

(3) These fundament parameters point to the possibility that the universe had been specially designed for life by a rational mind. (see Freeman Dyson "Disturbing the Universe", Harper & Row Pub: New York, 1979 p:245-253)

 

The Anthropic Principle

(1) Evolutionists faced with this evidence did not like the idea that it pointed to an intelligent designer. There had to be a more 'logical' solution.

(2) The evolutionists answer to this quandary was to invent the Anthropic Principle, a principle based on the need to justify their preconceived belief in evolution, rather than on physical evidence.

(3) The Anthropic Principle is based around the logic that humans are able to observe the existing universe. The definition of the principle above can be redefined as - 'The universe is what it is, because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to see it'.

(4) The Anthropic Principle is not science. Evolutionists created it from reason, by twisting logic - it is an illusion.

(5) The principle can be stated in three distinct ways - as a tautological, a metaphysical, & a lame formulation.

(a) The tautological Anthropic Principle - "The universe has survival (observable) properties because we survive (and observe)." [W.J. ReMine p:61]

i/ This statement is a tautology because it is circular. It masquerades as though it is conveying information, but it explains nothing. "Why do we survive? Answer: Because the universe has survivable properties. Why do we know the universe has survivable properties? Answer: Because we survive. It is a circular argument." [W.J. ReMine p:62]

ii/ As a tautology this statement is always true, and can never be untrue.

iii/ This tautology is not a scientific statement because it doesn't explain anything, nor is it testable. (see H.R. Pagels, The Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1985 p:37)

(b) The metaphysical Anthropic Principle - "There are an infinitude of other universes having properties unlike the known universe; almost all those other universes are unsuitable for life; therefore 'nature' on the average has no special favour towards life or humankind." [W.J. ReMine p:62]

i/ Expressing the Anthropic Principle in this way infers that the existence of our universe has been simply the result of random chance, not design.

ii/ Evolutionists mostly avoid using this formulation of the principle because "other universes" are metaphysical, they are unobservable, and make the definition sound like non-science.

"The Anthropic Principle is misnamed, which helps to conceal its true nature. The name misdirects your attention onto man. It should be called the Many Universes scenario." [W.J. ReMine p:63]

iii/ Scientists can see the metaphysical nature of "other universes" and use logic to get rid of them. To do this they twist words, creating the impression that the Anthropic Principle is true, and that it logically explains the universe's design.

"[I]n what sense can all these different universes be said to exist? If they are really separate from each other, what happens in another universe can have no observable consequences in our own universe. We should therefore use the principle of economy and cut them out of the theory." [S.W. Hawking "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes", Bantam Books: New York, 1988 p:125]

(c) The lame Anthropic Principle - "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the universe be old enough for it to have already done so." [J.D. Barrow & F.J. Tipler "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" (paperback revised edition), Oxford University Press: New York, 1988 p:16]

i/This lame definition combines the other two definitions, and so fails to explain anything. Often this is a deliberate attempt to avoid a helpful explanation by using long, convoluted, verbose statements.

ii/ A lame definition can create an illusion of correctness in such a way that a critic can fail to see any fault in it.

(6) The Anthropic Principle is usually expressed as the tautology because it is simple, and irrefutable. Any explanation of the principle is derived from the metaphysical version. Evolutionists therefore switch between the two versions to create an illusion that the Anthropic Principle is both true and explainable. This is the real power of the illusion.

  

Conclusion

(1) The Anthropic Principle is a contrived definition which evolutionists use to interpret the physical data, while avoiding the acknowledgement of a creator.

(2) The Anthropic Principle is not a scientific principle because a tested for "other universes" cannot be conducted.

 

 

SOURCE - W.J. ReMine "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory", St. Paul Science: Saint Paul (USA), 1993

 

 

 

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE -

 

G. Gale, Scientific American, Vol. 245, No. 6, 1981 p:154-171

M. Rees, New Scientist, August 6, 1987 p:44-47

J. Rosen, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 53, No. 4, 1985 p:335-339

J. Rosen, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 56, No. 5, 1988 p:415-419

B.J. Carr & M.J. Rees, Nature, Vol. 278, 1979 p:605-612

J.D. Barrow & J. Silk, Scientific American, April 1980, p:118-1228

J. Maddox, Nature, Vol. 307, 1984 p:409

S. Weinberg, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 59, No. 22, 1987 p:2607-2610

M. Fracassini, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 146, No. 2, 1988 p:321-331

F.J. Tipler, Observatory, Vol. 102, April 1982, p:36-39