Science, Creation & Evolutionjust some general logicAgain, Dawkins answers this: "The anthropic principle is usually applied not to planets but to universes. Physicists have suggested that the laws and constants of physics are too good — as if the universe were set up to favour our eventual evolution. It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle out within the first picosecond. Others would contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. In yet others, matter would never condense into stars (and you need stars in order to forge the elements of chemistry and hence life). You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work. But, as we have already seen, that explanation is vacuous because it begs the biggest question of all. The divine knob twiddler would himself have to have been at least as improbable as the settings of his knobs." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins ... index.html What he's talking about is very simple & logical: inserting god into the explanation does not simplify: it complicates. God demands an explanation. What process led to his existence? What made god? Most often the theistic answer is a tremendous cop out: god always existed. If god always existed, why not say the universe always existed? It's a much better hypothesis, yet still not satisfactory based on observed data. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame