Darwinism and anthropic principle?

Question

Why do scientists accept that random mutations and natural selection indicate that evolution has no purpose, while at the same time they reject that the fine tuning of the universe nature's constants for life does not indicate any purpose? Isn't that contradictory? I think we should accept or reject both, but can not accept one conclusion while rejecting the other.

Jason: And in what sense is "strict scientific naturalism that tells how nature lacks purpose all together" a different metaphysical assumption than that which believes in the contrary? Its just metaphysics in disguise.

Future P.A.: Indeed. They set a priori the "no-purpose" dogma and re-interpret natural evidence when they believe it confirms it, while they fail to realize that they dismiss other evidence which might have been interpreted contrary to it by the same reasoning.

kwxilvr: I accept evolution too. This is not the problem here. I question in what sense is the metaphysical conclusion that being "evolution a result of selection pressure operating on differences between individuals" being a "reasonably argument that it does not have any external purpose" different than the ID's belief that fine tuning is a reasonable argument for the contrary?

Jason: you are confusing scientific naturalism with philosophic naturalism. E. g., saying "mutations are random" is a scientific statement, while saying "mutations are purposeless" is a philosophic metaphysical one. Its scientists who replaced a pragmatic naturalistic approach with philosophic transcendental claims, not me. And you did not answer the question. Why does science resort to philosophic naturalism for evolutionary theories, while rejecting it for fine tuning? The only explanation I can see is that we use a priori an ideological standpoint, not a scientific one.

Samwise: "there is no basis for assuming a purpose and certainly no proof of one". Exactly! But when science transforms this statement presenting it as *evidence* for a lack of purpose it is transforming it into a philosophic metaphysical statement.

Answer 1

Yes. The method is apparently to deny purpose and then to speculate.

Scientists should not make conclusions on either one. Neither say that nature has purpose nor to say that nature doesn't have purpose. That is apparently hard for some of them.

Let's take the answer of the fellow below me. He says, "That's because scientists reject the notion of fine tuning of the universe in the first place". But that's not science he's spouting, it's philosophy. A scientist speaking within his/her discipline ought not to speculate on fine tuning.

Answer 2

If the "fine tuning" did not permit life to be supported at all (anywhere in the universe, as opposed to the ridiculously parochial case of the third major rock from a remarkably obscure star), then we would simply lack anybody to run around saying that the universe was obviously built for their sake. The fact that the universe has produced entities capable of suggesting such self-centered notions does not prove them true. That reasoning is completely circular.

Evolution, on the other hand, may be said to have no purpose, but it certainly has a direction. That is, a considerable portion of the repertoire of complications which are observable in species existing now, not the least of which is a brain capable of accommodating this sort of self-centeredness, are far too complicated to have appeared early in an evolutionary process.

I am not saying that there is no purpose or no God. (I am, in fact, a Christian.) What I am saying is that there is no basis for assuming a purpose and certainly no proof of one, and the mere fact that beings have arisen capable of a degree of self-centeredness and rationalization which allows them to claim they are the purpose and can prove it by their mere existence, simply illustrates that there is a great deal more room for development of intelligence.

As does, by the way, the notion that the common descent of a wide variety of species on one small planet would somehow constitute evidence of the absence of a Creator.

Or the notion that creation fables ought to be considered adequate scientific texts, and that therefore either they, or the theory of evolution, can contain a portion of the truth, but not both.

That last, by the way, is a piece of preposterous silliness which has phenomenal support from both creationists and promoters of a pseudo-scientific atheism. When both groups realize that they are propounding nonsense and learn to laugh at themselves, perhaps we will get some real progress.

Answer 3

Not all scientists accept the anthropic principle. My sense is that most serious scientific types are at least skeptical about it's application to solve the problem of "why we are here."

Evolution is a result of selection pressure operating on differences between individuals, and so can be reasonably argued does not have any external purpose.

The anthropic principle is closely allied with intelligent design, and some ID-ers have attempted to rally to the anthropic principle because they smell a solution in it.

It seems you can easily and consistently reject the anthropic principle until much more evidence and testable predictions can be fashioned out of it.

On the other hand, it is not possible to easily reject evolution. The evidence and testable predictions (especially for transitional forms) is so overwhelming that to reject evolution you would have to have a substantially superior alternative. And there is no such alternative. Creationism and intelligent design have been forcefully and conclusively demonstrated as inferior explanations.

So, speaking only for myself, the jury is out on the anthropic principle, and what little evidence exists is meager. And there is certainly substantial evidence from quantum dynamics suggesting that the "heart" of the problem cannot imply a "pre-designed purpose."
But I readily accept evolution because the evidence is long and the argument is persuasive on several levels.

Answer 4

That's because scientists reject the notion of fine tuning of the universe in the first place.
Why is it that existence of life is anymore special than a comet that revolves around Sun with a precise orbit that could have been different with billions by billions of different paths?
You are still stuck in a notion that universe has some sort of purpose to evolve towards life-sustaining environment.

Strict scientific naturalism would tell you that the nature lacks purpose all together. It is blind to good and evil. It does not know where it leads to. Universe just is and nature just is.

---- edit
Wilyman says
<>

Lack of pretentious presumption is a presumption now? Tell me what can replace a pragmatic naturalistic way in science? Transcendental revelation? Teleological reasoning you seem to adhere to? Teleological reasoning is useful when it comes to determining usage of appendix in our body or structure of eyes, but if you are asking for cosmological purpose of universe, life and such, you are making a severe scientific mistake.

Matthew T says
<>

Again, I request the same to you. Tell me what can replace a pragmatic naturalistic way in science? If it is not this powerful methodological naturalism, what else should we use in science?

Answer 5

Huh? Most Evil Atheist Scientists® see no guiding purpose in either evolution or any "fine tuning" of nature's constants.

The anthropic principle does not claim that we are special in any way. It merely states that if things were different, we would not be around to observe it. Nature's constants only appear "finely tuned" in that this particular configuration allows us to exist to observe it as a result.