If the moon had been different in any way, we wouldn't be here arguing about how ideal it is. There are doubtlessly squillions of planets out there in the universe with inadequate moons, and poor conditions for life as a result. One planet got lucky, and life formed as a result (us).

To borrow from Douglas Adams, this argument is like a puddle waking up one day and saying 'This hole that I'm in fits me perfectly! What a coincidence!'
steven | 06.28.05 - 10:09 pm | #

Steven,

The would be a valid argument if the moon represented the only instance of fine-tuning. It is, however, only one of many examples.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.28.05 - 10:20 pm | #

I replied a while ago, but I can't see the comment yet, so sorry if this appears twice.

It doesn't matter how many factors you throw in. There are about 10^21 stars to pick from, so even absurdly unlikely things are almost guaranteed to happen somewhere. Besides, if God caused the Big Bang, but then had to keep coming back and tampering with his creation because he didn't get it right, he's obviously not that much of a god.
steven | 06.29.05 - 6:41 am | #

Steven,

Since a great deal of the fine tuning occurs in the production of stars and galaxies, as well is in the stellar nuclear chemistry that results in heavy elements, the number of planets is not relevant.

Even if it were, merely stating that there are 10^21 or 10^22 planets is not proof of anything.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.29.05 - 7:00 am | #

I was referring only to points relating to the formation of star systems, to which the number of stars in the universe is obviously pertinent. As for the "stellar nuclear chemistry", I am not a physicist and not equipped to venture into this realm, though it does interest me and I will continue to look into it. I do know that the GUT and superstring theory and so on are incomplete and therefore, perhaps, speculation on this subject is futile for now. Cosmological ID is the one form of ID that I might be willing to accept, but I do not accept the theory that the creator was throwing moons around in the primordial solar system. Nor should physicists stop looking for naturalistic explanations.
steven | 06.29.05 - 8:51 am | #

David,

I'm with you as far as requirements for the Earth to be habitable, etc., but I think the universal (or cosmological) ID arguments are rather myopic.

No, to disprove fine-tuning you have to show that the sensitivity to small changes in physical constants is an illusion.

I believe I do show this in my Review of The Privileged Planet (section: "Stuff about Numbers").

I extend the argument here: Can You Bind the Links of the Pleiades?

I'm not certain that my writing in these posts does justice to my point. I'm trying to convey that the universal ID arguments assume the the universe is not an integrated whole and that order is imposed "from without." If you're going to start with that assumption, you might as well hand the world over to reductionism.

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts though.

Regards,

MJ
Meta-jester | Homepage | 07.01.05 - 5:12 pm | #

Where's the fine tuning? Last I checked Stars still ran out of gas and blew up/die out and kill all life as we know it after a few billion or so years until the fuel runs out. The universe is not ingeniously designed, its suited equally as much for the destruction of life and really long boring tracts of wasted matter, space and energy for a being that is capable of designing and supporting out of his own underived energy any possible less hostile universe that doesn't throw asteroids at earth causing massive extinctions and general havoc all around.

The only people who could ever think the universe was designed with modern scientific knowledge are the theologically influenced who's theology included the literal destruction of the universe and the earth.
Spinza | 07.03.05 - 9:30 am | #