Marcus Mattsson

I stumbled upon a Reddit about some guy who was about to ask a Creationist (David Van Koevering) some questions on an American radio show. I listened in, via Skype, and had a small debate in the Reddit comments about how utterly retarded this Creationist was. Amongst a lot of babble he was using the anthropic principle as proof for intelligent design, so I happened to be reading about it while listening. Suddenly the host said, “Okay, the next caller, ‘fookhar’, could you identify yourself?”, and then I was on the air … I managed to spurt out some points, which you can hear in the sound clip below.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Since I was rambling, I’d like to make my points clear here instead. As mentioned, David was using the anthropic principle which states that the cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life. If any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, life would be impossible, therefore the cosmos is designed by a god. I was trying to make the following points:

1. The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.
2. If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.
3. If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?
4. Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined.
5. The anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.

I kind of got point 4 and 5 mixed together, point 5 arguing that the anthropic principle is actually an argument against an omnipotent creator, and point 4 arguing that intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Unfortunately David did not really respond to any of my points (he starts talking about how there’s much of the universe we can’t see, I don’t know how that’s relevant), but that was still quite an interesting experience. I was not allowed to respond to his comments.