Stephen Hawking & the Omnipotent Fishgod: Modern Physics vs Intelligent Design

In what is becoming to be one of the worst misuses of science since electronics ended up in Sammy the Singing Sea Bass, defenders of "Intelligent Design" increasingly abuse both words and the anthropic principle to "prove" the existence of God.  

Many of our greatest scientists have been asking why does the universe appear to fe "fine-tuned" for life? The logic behind this question, sometimes known as the anthropic principle, says that we are here today, able to study the universe and learn about its laws. But if any of these were much different, we could never have come in to exist in the first place.

Scientists study why fundamental values of the universe like the gravitational constant or the mass of an electron are what they are. The anthropic principle states that these values can only be observed if they're such that observers can exist to do so.  You'll notice that this is perfectly true but doesn't actually advance the issue, and certainly isn't proof that an invisible man spent a few millenia tuning the basic interactions of physics to eventually create something that looked like him thirteen billion years later, in the most complicated bio-cosmic Rube Goldberg machine possible.

The way the values are exactly those required for life as we know it unnecessarily surprises far too many people. Of course any life will be perfectly suited to the universe it's in - almost as if that's where it bloody happened, and in fact every process leading to anything called life is utterly dependent on succeeding in the local environment.  It's like being amazed how well water fits into gills - surely the structure of H2O is perfectly engineered by an omnipotent fishgod for his faithful marine subjects!

People who say slightly different values would prevent life only betray their total lack of imagination: they can conceive of an entirely alternate universe with fundamentally different physics, but the idea that maybe different things would happen in a different universe?  Madness!  Insisting on carbon constructions when there's an infinity of possible existences to play with?  It's like going to the Library of Congress and maintaining that something's only a book if it's about Peter Rabbit, because that's the first one you read..

This is where we're usually accused of being anti-religion.  We're not.  Faith provides a wonderful support for countless millions, as well as parts of a moral system which would probably be really good if people would use it right.  But we are against religion interfering with science.  No lab-coated lunatic has ever burst into a church towing a mass spectrometer demanding to analyze the Eucharist. So sermonizers shouldn't stuff up the gears of actual progress because they've decided their faith isn't actually strong enough to withstand other people thinking differently.

Unfortunately we're going to keep seeing complete logical breaks like this quote: 

"Hawking and his colleagues presented the mathematical details in a formal paper that supports the anthropic principle. In other words, the universe is adapted for a purpose and that purpose is life."  

Can you spot where the author helpfully explains what those silly scientists really meant?  You should always be extremely suspicious of "this means" and "in other words."  

When we really get education working, everyone will spot such logical fallacies and make their own minds up.  Until then we'll have shouting matches started by those who pick a position first and then choose their evidence afterwards.

We at The Daily Galaxy think Douglas Adams nailed the issue in The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

“The Babel fish,” said The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy quietly, “is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. 

The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

“The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’

“`But,’ says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’

“`Oh dear,’ says God, `I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

“`Oh, that was easy,’ says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

Luke McKinney with Casey Kazan

Source: http://www.thesunnews.com/opinion/story/1192709.html

Comments

[Simon Salosny]

Luke McKinney´s article leaves one´s thoughts in tourmoil and a sensation of "mindbogging" empathy. The analysis and logic involved leaves one as well with the increased craving to find answers. Also, a long sigh generates the consciousness of not being alone in the belief that the human mind is magical/quantic; having found proof that it affects the environment and circumstances by consciously applying one´s power of will. Naturally, this can´t be proved by the use of any technology currently known; but one can use the brain device to find or create anything...

[ramkumar]

Babel .. fish . The source article in sun starts from a quote of Dawking and ends with a psalm as if anthropic principle
(If the mas of electron where little different ,if there are no
gasious gaints like jupiter,uranus ,a different gravitational constant,had the events after 2 seconds after big bang little different ) supports all the concepts in Bible It is taking the some concepts of stephan w haking, paul davis and John gribbin to prove the point that there is a creater ..and now with the changed scenarious (Bruno burned at stake , earth as the centre,7 creative days of God at least the church had started changing according to time ) it is more stlylish ' Intelligent design '. A site like daily galaxy
must select more better articles for publishing .. than Babel fish (Scientists find evidence of design') which promotes religious dogmatisam.

[Will]

@Simon.....

That was utterly incoherent.

[Ray]

Good job on this one, guys! Better than most.

[spiin]

"So sermonizers shouldn't stuff up the gears of actual progress because they've decided their faith isn't actually strong enough to withstand other people thinking differently."

great line

[James]

"So sermonizers shouldn't stuff up the gears of actual progress because they've decided their faith isn't actually strong enough to withstand other people thinking differently."
You mean like Algore, IPCC, and all the AGW fanatical/religious nuts?

[Big Red]

Now, Carl Sagan was totally baller and I couldn't agree more that we "are a way for the cosmos to know itself." The problem is that a few too many people are afraid of not knowing...which leads directly to possible "instinct" for wanting to know the cosmos. But then there's those people who are not concerned with knowing what can be proven because they choose to turn their head from a strict religious upbringing or because they truly do not give a rat's ass what happens to a physical world based on their beliefs in God.

And now, in the swift uprising reach of science, we kind of forget how important faith is to some people...or in your words "other people thinking differently." These people who "interfere" with your science really...REALLY...believe they are doing the will of a supreme being and that they are delivering the truth to you, the scientist. No doubt that many religions take unnecessary extremes on the matter, but asking someone to "settle down" on an issue that they take to the core of their past, present, AND future, is asking them to be selfish, and is equally being selfish in the accusation. These people are innocent...on all fronts of "spreading their truth."

You'd shudder and squirm to think about it, but modern figures like Hitler are not someone to HATE for their world views...they are someone to PITY...and as such...if you're not a religious person, (and the same goes in the reverse on this)...don't hate, but rather PITY the opposing party. You pity because you believe you have the truth and it is a dignified human act to share what you believe to be the truth...we are not wanting to be the previously mentioned "selfish."

And I hate to burst every "non-believer's" bubble but EVERYONE believes something. I'm sure everyone expects the law of gravity to be as relevant and true tomorrow as it is today but you cannot prove to me that it will be. You can only rely on your senses, your brain, and others...religion is the same way. People rely on their brain and the senses of others...perhaps those "others" being biblical figures. It is not something to laugh at if people (the masses) are willing to put their trust in the future on the senses of someone from the past. If you don't agree, it is not something to hate or get angered at. It is something to pity, but pity with the respect that WHATEVER someone's beliefs are, they may have a FERVOR that requires extreme commitment...be it science, God, or both.

[James]

"No lab-coated lunatic has ever burst into a church towing a mass spectrometer demanding to analyze the Eucharist."

Even if you stuck to such a narrow criteria I would doubt that statement is true. However, a more liberal :) reading is easy enough to refute. Marxist belief in a "new man" certainly demands proof of God, scientific proof, of course. So yes, it has happened.

[William]

All that was, was you believe in God and thus are wrong, where's your scientific approach to disproving Intelligent Design?

Friggin Scientists that don't use Science when defending scientific conclusions, assbackward to me.

[Narendra Nath]

The opinions expressed above come mainly from the western world where Christianity dominates the rilegeous aspect and science often appears to come in conflict. The eastern religions are pragmatic enough to take science along as part of the overall search for truth. The domains may be different but both satisfy the goal of humanity. The spiritual aspect unifies in fact all religions, as practices only are irrational and superficial. The ancient indian scriptures provide the landscape for universalism and unity under diversity. It has no quarrel at all with noble scientific objectives. However, there is a dark side of science through its lustful, materialistic technology. The latter is not consistent with the nobility of human race and needs to be curbed.

[Ehud]

The nobility of the human race? Are we even on the same planet here? To be lustful and greedy is just as human, if not more human, than to be "spiritual".

Face it: We're a bunch of instinct-driven animals, and science is our best hope of transcending this state.

[jonathon]

not neccesarily a religious conviction overall, the general religious public, and not the church they are representing tend to be the hold outs anymore, and pushing the crazy tilted logic of creationism... more of a bible thumper thing. the actual church is slowly supporting more of science then its followers. they even went out on a limb stating there may be more intelligent life out there... woo hoo!! stupid... if they follow the bible there are angels in the bible which are clearly alien... so if god was making other races b4 man then whats to keep it from continuing to make other species of intelligence.. religion is about the power to control other peoples minds, as scienceis progressing to the point where it can show whether or not there is a puppet master behind everything religions freak out from the loss of mystery which represents control, in order to remain in or regain control they have to begin co opting science and twisting it towards religious doctrine and as long as you have people who listen or give it credence or manage to slip into main stream politics and then follow through on their agendas youll always have this, fight the power...

[Michael S]

I think this is a great article.

At last someone speaks out against the idiotic 'anthropic' principle. It amazes me sometimes that those at the top of human intelligence can utter such crazy ideas. It's a classic case of Emporor's new clothes. They must be motivated by politics, money or possibly fear of death.

Relating to religion I think it's the strategy within scientific circles to endorse religion so they are left in peace to do their calculations and experiments. I suppose they think in time all this religious thinking will no longer be an evolutionary advantage, and so wither away. Even Einstein and Hawkins appear to be part of that crowd.

In some ways scientists seem to have lost the plot. It is clear from the use of arbitrary constants, and the Heisenberg principle with it's associated probabilities that we still don't know everything. For example can anyone actually explain to a layperson like me HOW gravity works, WHAT makes it work, WHY some people think it related to the expanding universe and why some think it's a push force?

Some scientists seem assume to know things and then come up with theories that are in cases completely illogical (but cloaked in pseudo logic). Thank goodness for peer review. Off course the water will fit exactly into the gills of the fish. Yes, the polar bear can only survive in a cold climate - unless they mutate that is. Let's not blame a creator for their suffering.

We could however blame the scientists.

[tj]

We scientists can describe how, but not why. The anthropic principle does not prove God exists, but the universe is consistent with faith in God, even the God of the Bible. It's as if the universe is marvelously ambiguous. It does not flat out prove God is real, but leaves it to that element of faith. Faith, biblical faith, is a relationship with a divine being. A person must choose to personally enter into that relationship. To an open minded, unbiased person, science would neither hinder or encourage that relationship.

[Raghav]

1.Why is it always intelligent design is associated with the God or Divine ?
2.A Monkey keying a classical novel par with the Shakespeare has the probability of 1 in hundreds of thousand millions.The universe is so big. why cannot the inconceivably things happen by chance.
3.Is it not possible the most evolved beings help the humans?
4.Is there possibility aliens have been visiting the Earth or humans ?
5.Why cannot be the dynamics of the physics and mathematics is very limited with the way we are thinking.

[man of god]

I think u athiest are retarted lunatics.... so what if u dnt believe in god. In what way does that make u superior then us .... ur stupid if u have pity over us spiritual men. We believe in god..... SO WHAT that doesn't. Mean ur better then us...