Did Andrei Linde inadventantly destroy the argument from design?

[ribozyme]

Read this: closertotruth.com/topics/universemeaning/105/105transcript.html

Also: stanford.edu/~alinde/

FRANK: The anthropic principle starts by saying that there are many different types of universes. Take Andrei [Linde]'s eternally inflating universes, which you spoke about in the introduction. Some of them would inflate very rapidly and survive for long periods of time; other universes would have other characteristics, perhaps not inflating as fast and therefore collapsing before intelligent life had time to evolve. So what you have, in effect, is a selection process among all these possible universes. Only those universes that will admit life, that have just the right collection of physical constants and cosmic conditions to allow life to evolve, will have intelligent life able to ask questions like “How old is the universe?” Only in those universes where this question can be asked will it be asked. All other universes will never have intelligent life, so no such issues will ever arise.

ROBERT: The idea sounds almost trivial, a tautology–only in those universes that allow for intelligent life will there be intelligent questions. What are you adding?

FRANK: The anthropic principle asks why the universe has one value [for a given physical parameter] rather than another, since a complete range of values is possible. For example, take the cosmological constant, which results in a universal vacuum field that causes an accelerated expansion. The natural value that we theoretical physicists have computed is something like a hundred and twenty orders of magnitude larger than what is actually seen by observational astronomers. So there’s a gigantic discrepancy between our theory and experiment. Now, we would expect other universes to have very different cosmological constants. But only those universes that have a cosmological constant very close to zero would be capable of giving rise to intelligent life.

ROBERT: So the anthropic principle’s notion is that there’s something about our universe specially suited for intelligent life. That’s not trivial. Nancey, the book you co-wrote with George Ellis, On the Moral Nature of the Universe, interrelates theology, cosmology, and ethics. Is modern cosmology compatible with traditional Judeo-Christian views?

NANCEY: That’s a difficult question to answer, because cosmological theories keep changing so quickly. Those of us who specialize in the relationship between theology and science complain that since theological books get published so slowly, by the time they come out the science has often changed on you. But there are many interesting points of contact, not necessarily of agreement, that make for interesting dialogues.

ROBERT: What are some of these points of contact between theology and cosmology?

NANCEY: Well, one of the questions has to do with the infinity of the universe. A traditional Christian claim about the universe is that somehow it must be less than God. And so theologians speak in terms of the universe being finite in time, finite in size, or at least having a contingent origin or existence. But it seems to me that if some of Andrei’s theories about a universe of universes are true, then we may be looking at an ensemble of universes that is potentially infinite in time, infinite in space, and perhaps necessarily existing. And that idea begins to tread on theologians’ toes.

ROBERT: Are you uncomfortable with multiple universes?

NANCEY: If the universe turns out to be that way, Christian theologians are going to have to do some more homework to ask in what sense they can maintain those traditional claims about finiteness and contingency.

 

[ribozyme]

ANDREI: Initially, inflation was considered as an intermediate stage of the evolution of the universe, which was necessary to solve many of these cosmological problems. At the end of inflation, as I said earlier, when the scalar field decayed, the universe became hot, and its subsequent evolution could be described by the standard Big Bang theory. Thus inflation was a part of the Big Bang theory. Gradually, however, the Big Bang theory became a part of inflation cosmology. Recent versions of inflationary theory assert that instead of being a single, expanding ball of fire, the universe looks like a huge, rapidly multiplying fractal. This fractal-like universe consists of many inflating balls that produce new balls, which in turn produce more new balls, ad infinitum. Therefore the evolution of the universe, as you mentioned in your introduction, has no end and may have had no beginning.

ROBERT: The size scales intrinsic to inflation theory are far beyond anything ever conceived.

ANDREI: After inflation the universe becomes divided into different exponentially large domains, inside of which properties of elementary particles and even the number of dimensions of space-time may be different. Thus, the new cosmological theory leads to a considerable modification of the standard point of new on the structure and evolution of the universe and on our own place in the world.

…

ROBERT: Nancey, from a theological perspective, what is your view of inflationary theory’s multiple universes versus the Big Bang’s unique universe?

NANCEY: Well, it’s a disappointment to me that inflationary theory has taken off so well, because it undermines the argument that George [Ellis] and I developed in our book [On the Moral Nature of the Universe]. We started out with the anthropic principle that Frank [Tipler] talks about, and we reasoned that if there’s only one universe–and we know the cosmological constant in this one–then it had to have been designed by a brilliant mathematician. And so it looked like we had grounds for a new design argument.

ROBERT: A resurrection, as it were, of the so-called argument from design, which was one of the classical arguments for the existence of God.3

NANCEY: Exactly. Other such arguments [for the existence of God] usually last for a hundred, a hundred and fifty years or so, before someone like Darwin comes along and destroys them. But it looks as though Andrei [Linde] has come along and destroyed ours in two years flat.

ANDREI: This was not my purpose.

NANCEY: I know.

ROBERT: He had to invent new physics to do this.

NANCEY: But he’s never embarrassed about doing that.

 

[John_Taylor]

Did Andrei Linde inadventantly destroy the argument from design?

How can anyone “destroy” the argument from design less they demonstrate how “something” may come into existence “out of nothing” - and that “necessarily so”? How does a theory about multiple universes giving rise to other universes - ad infinitum - explain anything about ‘The First Cause’ ?

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[Liberian]

Ribozyme,

Ah, the “anthropic principle.” I read in Scientific American that it puts Descartes before the horse: “I am, therefore … (I think).”

John Taylor has given you an excellent reply, a better one than I could.

• Liberian

 

[John_Taylor]

To anyone interested…I rather liked (given my biases) the following article I read from Robert Sungenis’ website:

The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design:
catholicintl.com/scienceissues/tpid.pdf

if we accept the definition that “Science” is the knowledge of things we gather through observation and experiments - and the logical inferences to which these observations and experiments may lead us to about the things studied - then Intelligent Design (ID) is superior Science to purely “Naturalistic” explanations of our Universe (e.g., “evolution”) in that the inference of an Intelligent Designer is based on the universal observations (to the extent that we have studied the universe) that

1. living things do not come into existence from non-living things

and

1. information and the communication of information (via “codes”) is the product of “intentional/volitional acts”

ID can thus logically infer the existence of “God” as the source of life and the “information” encoded in the DNA of living things while purely naturalistic explanations must “posit” - or otherwise “assume” - something NOT observed and that is:

1. living things arise from non-living things and
2. information arises from non-thinking processes.

I use to defend the sort of “God created the world through evolutionary processes” explanation of our universe - thinking I was reconciling faith with science - but I have to say - given the above article and others which disprove the “scientific” assumptions behind the current dating of the Fossil Record - I’m a bit taken aback…maybe those “wild eyed fundamentalists” have something to say after all.

:-/

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[estesbob]

Read this: closertotruth.com/topics/universemeaning/105/105transcript.html

Also: stanford.edu/~alinde/

1. How did something come from nothing?
2. How did life spring from non-life?

 

[tdgesq]

That was a very informative article. But I noticed Linde stopped short of saying that the universe has no beginning: Therefore the evolution of the universe, as you mentioned in your introduction, has no end and may have had no beginning.

He may have had some specific scientific reasons for doing so, but I infer that he doesn’t want to argue that existence and being has just - well - always been. It doesn’t have an origin - not even prime matter. What justification would he have for this position? Interesting stuff.

 

[ribozyme]

That was a very informative article. But I noticed Linde stopped short of saying that the universe has no beginning: Therefore the evolution of the universe, as you mentioned in your introduction, has no end and may have had no beginning.

He may have had some specific scientific reasons for doing so, but I infer that he doesn’t want to argue that existence and being has just - well - always been. It doesn’t have an origin - not even prime matter. What justification would he have for this position? Interesting stuff.

I think it is quite likely that the universe had no beginning, but Linde thinks it has no end.

 

[tdgesq]

Right. In fact he does say that. Why is it quite likely though that it had no beginning? What would be the scientific basis for that assertion?

 

[ribozyme]

Sorry, I really said that?

I meant to say it is likely that the universe had a beginning. Linde doubts it…

Do a query on Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin theorem which shows that under plausible assumptions, future-eternal inflation requires a beginning.

 

[ribozyme]

1. How did something come from nothing?
2. How did life spring from non-life?

I am curious to see *your *argument regarding the implausibility of the origin of life…

I want to see how well do you know the origin of life literature and the relevant chemistry.

 

[estesbob]

I am curious to see *your *argument regarding the implausibility of the origin of life…

I want to see how well do you know the origin of life literature and the relevant chemistry.

So your answer is that I am too “ignorant” for you to explain it to?

Have you done any hard research on this yourself or are you just cherry picking articles and taking it on “faith” that it is correct? Has anyone been able to create life in the laboratory?

I ask again:

1. How did something come from nothing
   2, How did life come from non-life?

I know the anwers to these questions. They are contained in a peer reviewed study that has withstood the test of time.

 

[ribozyme]

So your answer is that I am too “ignorant” for you to explain it to?

Have you done any hard research on this yourself or are you just cherry picking articles and taking it on “faith” that it is correct? Has anyone been able to create life in the laboratory?

I ask again:

1. How did something come from nothing
   2, How did life come from non-life?

I know the anwers to these questions. They are contained in a peer reviewed study that has withstood the test of time.

I’ll quote from this letter I found on the Internet: debat.ateist.net/showpost.php?p=5233

I certainly respect your opinion, and that of atheists and “intelligent designers” alike. **Scientific understanding of the origin of life is incomplete, as is the case for many other complex topics. **As I scientist I am working to try to improve our understanding, primarily through laboratory experimentation.

Yes, I read my fair share of literature about biochemistry and the origin the life…

I am not insulting your intelligence; biochemistry is a subject that is easy to understand (all you need is some knowlege in chemistry and biology)… The hard part is that you have to read a lot of papers just to have a rudimentary understanding of the subject. If you do not like the subject you will not do it; however, if you like the subject, this will not be a problem.

I did not claim in this thread that the origin of life was naturalistic, although I most certainly believe that it is. By asking those questions, it seems that you disbelieve in a naturalistic origin of life and we have to invoke a supernatural explanation. If you believe in a supernatural origin of life, I want you to at least show us that you know what life is, and you have some vague idea of “prebiotic chemistry” on the early Earth, and you could demonstrate using scientific literature that “prebiotic chemistry” is unsatisfactory to explain life.

I can do the same, that is I do not possess a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life, but you claimed it, so I expect you to support that claim.

What “peer reviewed study” that “withstood the test of time” do you refer to?

 

[estesbob]

I’ll quote from this letter I found on the Internet: debat.ateist.net/showpost.php?p=5233

Yes, I read my fair share of literature about biochemistry and the origin the life…

I am not insulting your intelligence; biochemistry is a subject that is easy to understand (all you need is some knowlege in chemistry and biology)… The hard part is that you have to read a lot of papers just to have a rudimentary understanding of the subject. If you do not like the subject you will not do it; however, if you like the subject, this will not be a problem.

I did not claim in this thread that the origin of life was naturalistic, although I most certainly believe that it is. By asking those questions, it seems that you disbelieve in a naturalistic origin of life and we have to invoke a supernatural explanation. If you believe in a supernatural origin of life, I want you to at least show us that you know what life is, and you have some vague idea of “prebiotic chemistry” on the early Earth, and you could demonstrate using scientific literature that “prebiotic chemistry” is unsatisfactory to explain life.

I can do the same, that is I do not possess a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life, but you claimed it, so I expect you to support that claim.

What “peer reviewed study” that “withstood the test of time” do you refer to?

biblegateway.com/

 

[ribozyme]

biblegateway.com/

Hmm…

Gee… does that publication explain anything about prebiotic chemistry?

Some say it even has the Grand Unified Theory…

answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/bigbang.asp

Why can’t I find anything that relates to the grand unification energy (estimated to be about 10e14 GeV) or proton decay.

So could you demonstrate using scientific evidence that a naturalistic origin of life is unlikely?

 

[Nullasalus]

No, he didn’t. The argument from design is broader than anthropic fine tuning, and even fine tuning hasn’t been destroyed - Linde has proposed a possible explanation for certain aspects of the universe and inflation in general. The theory he has is, on its own, pretty tentative - the interpretations he takes from it are philosophical, rather than scientific.

One look at the man’s website shows how fast and loose he’s playing with the theory. Fun, sure, but we shouldn’t confuse speculation with science, or science with philosophy.

 

[estesbob]

Hmm…

Gee… does that publication explain anything about prebiotic chemistry?

Some say it even has the Grand Unified Theory…

answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/bigbang.asp

Why can’t I find anything that relates to the grand unification energy (estimated to be about 10e14 GeV) or proton decay.

So could you demonstrate using scientific evidence that a naturalistic origin of life is unlikely?

You are aslking me to prove a negative. Can you show us how:

Something came from nothng?

Life sprang from non-life?

I

 

[ribozyme]

You are aslking me to prove a negative. Can you show us how:

Something came from nothng?

Life sprang from non-life?

I

If you read my remarks closely, I never asked you to “prove” anything.

So could you demonstrate using scientific evidence that a naturalistic origin of life is unlikely?

…

If you believe in a supernatural origin of life, I want you to at least show us that you know what life is, and you have some vague idea of “prebiotic chemistry” on the early Earth, and you could demonstrate using scientific literature that “prebiotic chemistry” is unsatisfactory to explain life.

…

I am curious to see your argument regarding the implausibility of the origin of life

So I did not ask you to prove it is an impossibility; I merely asked you to show us how our knowledge of the relevant chemistry is unsatisfactory to explain the origin life.

On another note, why should Professor Gerald Joyce and Professor Robert Shapiro read the Bible instead of actually conducting research and reading publications such as Science, Nature, and *PNAS *to get their information about the origin of life.

 

[estesbob]

If you read my remarks closely, I never asked you to “prove” anything.

So I did not ask you to prove it is an impossibility; I merely asked you to show us how our knowledge of the relevant chemistry is unsatisfactory to explain the origin life.

On another note, why should Professor Gerald Joyce and Professor Robert Shapiro read the Bible instead of actually conducting research and reading publications such as Science, Nature, and *PNAS *to get their information about the origin of life.

Have they shown :

How does Something come from Nothing
How does life spring from non-life

Professors Augustine, Edith Stein, Aquinas, Jerome et al explain it very well. Perhaps you are looking in the wrong places?

 

[ribozyme]

Have they shown :

How does Something come from Nothing
How does life spring from non-life

Professors Augustine, Edith Stein, Aquinas, Jerome et al explain it very well. Perhaps you are looking in the wrong places?

Gee, I do not think they ever used the word “nucleotide” or “enzyme” in their publications…

I’ll ask you again: Do you have any reasons derived from your knowledge of biochemistry or reading origin of life literature that argues against a naturalistic origin of life.

I’ll quote Joyce again: “Scientific understanding of the origin of life is incomplete, as is the case for many other complex topics. As I scientist I am working to try to improve our understanding, primarily through laboratory experimentation.”

Well, our knowledge is incomplete and scientific investigation will illuminate some information about the origin of life.