Does the Anthropic Principle make a strong argument for Intelligent design as advocated by Christian Scientist

Answer 1

No. The anthropic principle is the answer to the design arguments.

Design argument: look at the earth, it is so perfect for life, isn't it obvious that it was made especially for us by a god who loves us....

Anthropic principle: there are gajillions of planets out there. A very small fraction of them are probably going to be suitable for life. So of course, we have to be on one of the suitable planets. No special design required, that's just how it had to work out. We couldn't be discussing this if we were on an unsuitable planet.

Design argument: the fundamental constants of the universe (G, h-bar, c, etc) seem to be tuned just perfectly so that the universe has relatively stable matter suitable to make galaxies and stars and planets and people. Things are way too perfect to believe that this is a coincidence. God must have set it up like that.

Anthropic response: there might be a landscape of universes with different values of the standard model constants. Just as with planets, some of them are bound to be suitable. So of course, we could only be discussing this if we were on a suitable one.

So the bottom line is this--the anthropic principle is an answer to those who invoke god to explain why the universe and the earth are so friendly to us.

Answer 2

Even with or without the Anthropic Principle, the arguments for ID are flawed. ID is based on the concept of complex specified information (see sources). The argument goes that because some occurances are so unlikely as a random result, that there must be an intelligent design. Beyond all the philosophical issues with this argument, the mathematical treatment is also in error.

The proponent of this concpet, Dembski, uses incorrect assumptions about probability distributions and the complexity necessary to create a bit pattern of ones and zeros. He argues that these bits have a 50% chance of 0/1 throughout the pattern, so a long series forming a pattern in nature is highly unlikely.

However, scientific treatments of this concept take into account the fact that very simple mechanisms can be used to create very long, detailed, non-random patterns which even have clear effects and uses. Therefore, the complexity of a pattern is not measured by the chance of occuring at random, but by the minimum amount on information necessary to reproduce the pattern. Research in this field is called algorithmic information theory (see sources).

For instance, gene codes can produce very complex cells from limited information. A psuedo-random generator circuit can produce an extremely long binary series from a simple circuit design (and your CMDA cellphone makes use of this fact). See sources.

What I find most ironic in all this, is that I actually believe in God because I find incredible wonder in the brilliance of the way the universe works. Scientific phenomenon like evolution, complexity theory, Godel's incompleteness theorem have converted me from an agnostic to a believer. This is what I would call the real argument for intelligent design. But it is a philosophical view, it cannot be scientifically proven.

ID proponents are out to 'prove' the existence of God, and by extension, a Christian god, and the literal treatment of the bible. They need to read their Douglas Adams, not to mention their Socrates.

Answer 3

No The Anthropic Principle says we are here because the conditions were right.

Answer 4

Christian science was created by a science fiction writer on a bet. How can any educated person give it a second thought?