View Single Post
  #27  
Unread August 22nd, 2006, 12:57 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy

Well Carey, it seems to me that the point of our discussion here was merely that natural selection is not really comparable to an actual superb theory, like say gravity—and you’ve acknowledged: “I think that comparing the two [natural selection (or "evolution") and gravitation] is a pretty empty exercise altogether.” So it seems that we more or less agree . . . isn’t that wonderful?

The Anthropic Principle (used to explain the structure of the universe considering how the forces are incredibly and precariously balanced—for no apparent reason—in a manner that constrains it to evolve to a point that allows us humans to have evolved and exist, and which is somewhat contrary to the Copernican principle) is interesting—it’s essentially the idea that the universe is fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life; or that the only reason we’re here is b/c the universe is fine tuned, otherwise we’d not be here; or that the laws of physics and the universe are the way they are so life could evolve and become aware of them.

However, admittedly, the Anthropic Principle does seem to be about as circular/tautological as selection, doesn’t it? And, like natural selection, the Anthropic Principle really is not comparable to an actual superb theory, like say gravity.
Reply With Quote