Intelligent Design ... by the numbers

The most endearing element of Intelligent Design is that the universe is so fine tuned that only a designer with a purpose could have made it so.

If the structure of the atom was changed just so...If the energy property of the quarks was altered just so slightly...every thing would be different. The Universe as we know it would not exist. And life would not exist.

OK...Let's see.

The Dimensions of the Game
Let's talk about baseball. Many baseball purists think that the game is perfect. It is the perfect team sport and the perfect individual sport. Defense vs. Offense. And if you change the dimensions of the game, it would be different.

Think of it. The bases are 90 ' ft from each other. This accounts for the batting averages being what they are. The majority of baseball players have a batting average between 250 and 275. The really good batters will have an average above 280 and up to 340. Very few if any will have a yearly batting average above 350. In the last 60 years only one player has had an average above 400. It is very hard to get a hit given the dimensions of the game.

Now suppose you changed the dimensions only a little bit. Instead of the base path at 90', you changed them to 89' and 10". That's only two inches. But that would be enough to change the batting averages. Not much but you would affect the close calls. Now instead of missing the close call base hit by 2" you make it by 2". Batting averages would go up from 250 to 275; the outstanding hitters will have averages above 350 to 380.

Changing the dimensions of the game make a change in the game. But it is still baseball. Ohter adjustments may be made to favor the picture. 5 balls will equal a walk; 2 stikes equal a strike out. Change the dimensions to favor the batter, and you change other rules to favor the picture.

But it is still baseball. The game has changed, because the rules have changed. But it is baseball.

The Structure of the Universe
Well that's what the universe is like. If you change the rules so that this universe will produce a set of atoms with a certain atomic structure, you can have different molecular structures that would adjust to the different chemical rules, and hence different physical rules. The table of periodic elements would look different, but you would still have a table of periodic elements.

Fine Tuning
So the fine tune tinkering would not necessarily be unique. In fact, if you have a universe with the basic laws of F=MA and Shroedingers equation.




You have this universe. Now you can take this universe and change it by tinkering with the rules. But you would get a different universe. However, there is nothing to say that it couldn't evolve life and consciousness. If it did that, if it allowed that, then you would have a universe like ours. It would permit life and consciousness. But it would not be unique.

The Arguement for Design does it show a necessary universe?
The result is that if any universe can create the conditions of life and consciousness, it undermines the argument of design. This is a finely tuned universe, but so is any universe that can create the conditions of life and consciousness. There is nothing special; this is a condition of nature and not necessarily unique. If it is not necessarily unique then the uniqueness factor is not the necessary factor to make you believe in a designer. That is unless you believe that the designer is nature, in the sense that God is nature via Spinosa.

A necessary universe is a unique universe. A universe which can create life and consciousness is necessary only if there is no other way to create those elements; only if life and consciousness can only be created in one universe. If any universe or a great number of possible universes can create life and consciousness then those conditions are ubiquitous; they are pan-universal. So the universe is not unique among universes. It is not unique, and if it is not unique, it is not necessary.

Creationism and Snapshots of the Universe

One problem that Creationism has (among many) is that it is a snapshot of the state of the Universe. By that I mean that any changes to the underlying structure cannot be made because time and space and the elements have already been spelled out by the Creator.

One way of looking at this is the notion that when the Creator made the universe he could have made a less than perfect creation or a perfect creation.

If the creation is less than perfect, end of story. There is no need to pursue creationism or Intelligent design as a model for the universe.

If the creation is perfect, as creationists believe, then in Liebniz' words, this is the "best of all Possbile worlds."

Well is it? I for one don't think it is because it could be improved by getting rid of cancer or diabeties. In other words, the universe doesn't meet the condition of being perfect if there are flaws. So the snapshot that was taken didn't really occur.

Some problems with Intelligent Design

Is this the only way that life could have originated?

Intelligent design advocates make the case that the universe is finely tuned, so much so that if you changed some small feature, the gravitational constant, or the mass of the proton, then the universe would be different, and life could not have been formed. They conclude that the intelligent construction of the universe, so finely tuned, creates proof that the universe was created by an intelligent creator. In other words, the intelligent creation is the result of an intelligent creator. The universe is intelligently designed, so there must be an intelligent creator, or God.



Let's look at this arguement. The main thrust of the argument is that because the universe, with it's natural construction of atoms has resulted in an organized table of periodic elements, and one of them, carbon, is the foundation of life, this natural construction could not have occured if the resulting organization weren't put into place to begin with.


Let's see.


Let's talk about Baseball. In baseball, the home plate is 90 feet from first base. Batters have their entire careers built around getting to first base as soon as possible after they hit the ball.

Good batters will get there about 30% of the time. Bad batters will get there about 20% of the time. Most batters will fall in between those two percentages.


Now let's change the dimensions of the ball field. Now say that the distance is not 90 feet but 89 feet. That means that more players will get to first base. Averages my go up so the the best hitters are over 35% and the worst hitters are now batting over 25%. The statistics have changed and the players will have to adjust their game to the new dimensions.


Or suppose the length is not 90 feet but 91 feet. The opposite will occur. More players will be out. Batting averages will drop, so that the best hitters are now batting around 25%; the worst hitters are batting around 15%. Again the statistics change, and the players have to adjust to the new dimensions.


But in both cases the game of baseball is still recognized. The conditions change but the game is still there. So let's take this kind of argument and apply it to the universe.

Universe #1

About 13 to 15 billion years ago, the big bang occurred. And let's say that one of the results of the big bang was that certain rules, and physical laws and constants were created that made the universe the way that it is. Let's call the rules and conditions by a simple term: "C" which the constant for the speed of light.

One result of the rules is periodic table of elements. There are 92 naturally occuring, and about 26 man-made.

We also know that element # 6 is carbon. And carbon is the foundation of life.






Universe #2:
Now let's suppose that in Universe #2, there was a big bang as well. But this time the constant of the universe is 1.1C. It is just a little bit bigger than C is in our universe. One of the consequences is that there are 134 naturally occurring elements. Carbon is one of them, but in this universe, element #48, our "Cadmium" is responsible for life, not carbon. Again in this universe there was a naturally occuring structure built around how the atoms were arranged. Life was not pre-ordained to start with Carbon, but with a different element.



Universe #3.
Universe #3 is like universe #2 and Universe #1. But in universe #3, the constant is .98C, smaller than universe #1. As a result there are only 58 naturally occuring elements, and element #18, "Argon" creates life. And again with this universe, the atoms arranged in such away that the properties of the periodic table result in a very different configuration for what constitutes matter.



In all three universes, we see that it is not necessary to invoke a special design, or even that the design in one is unique. This means that an intelligent design in which there is only one way to create life, doesn't have to be.

Fantasy Hero's and Intelligent Design

A lot of Intelligent design proponents question the slow and methodical evolutionary march to sophistication. They believe that sophistication came all at once, that it was designed that way...because the designer knew before hand what the final design was to look like, so there was no need for an intermediary step.

OK. Prove it!

This reminds me of the time when I was young and believed in superheroes and superhuman feats. If you start with the comic book heroes like Superman, The Fantastic Four and the like they all had extra-ordinary gifts and abilities. I soon realized that such fantasy powers couldn't come true. So I substituted those comic book fantasy powers for other fantasy powers, like hitting .500 in baseball, or throwing 6 touchdowns per game without an interception, or carrying a ball for an average of 8 yards per carry. It soon dawned on me why most hitters were hitting .260, why most Quarterbacks throw only 2 touchdowns passes and also throw picks; and that most runners only have a 2.5 yard per carry average. Reality bites.

The intelligent design argument is much like believing in the fantasy world of the comic books. It is a fine world, but reality bites. If you want to produce a scientific basis for Intelligent design, as a viable alternative to Evolution, I and most other scientists would be glad to listen.

So develop a scientific theory of Intelligent Design...prove it!.