Intelligent Design (ECP forum rules apply)*

Gunter Bechly was a curator at a museum in Germany. For the 200 year anniversary of Darwin's birth, he put together an exhibit that included a display to disprove intelligent design.  He said:

I made one big mistake I read the books ... [on intelligent design] and what I recognized to my surprise is that the arguments I found in those books were totally different from what I heard either from colleagues or when you watch youtube videos where the discussion is around intelligent design versus neo-Darwinian evolution. And I had the impression on one side that those people are mistreated their position is misrepresented and on the other hand that these arguments are not really receiving an appropriate response and they they have merit.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s)

In this video, Gunter Bechly explains how the fossil record differs from what evolution by natural selection would produce, and he explains how we know that enough fossils have been found to rule out incompleteness as an explanation for that deviation.





From the video:

Differences between the fossil record and what evolution by natural selection would produce:

"Darwinism predicts slow changes but the fossil record shows rapid changes"

"The theory predicts gradual changes with small steps but the fossil record shows sudden changes with big steps"

"There is no evidence for gradations of one form of one species into another."

"The fossils are distributed mostly on the terminal branches of the phylogenetic trees but they lack mostly for the internal branches and for the nodes where they should be found according to the theory."

"Even though there are some transitional fossils what we lack is this plethora of transitional fossils that would be predicted by the theory where you would have thousands of small steps that show the transition from one form to another form."

"There is conflicting evidence between the fossil record and between the predictions from the theory. For example between molecular data molecular clock datings between the pattern of appearance that is predicted by the philogenetic reconstruction and the pattern of appearance in the stratigraphical column.

"There are often fossils that are out of place that are found at the wrong place and at the wrong time and conflicting evidence that does not support Darwin's theory can no longer be explained away as an artifact of undersampling or as caused by the incompleteness of the fossil record."


How we know the fossils that have been found represent an accurate portrayal of the history of life:

"Charles Darwin was quite aware that his theory does not agree with the fossil record and so he hoped that this can be explained away with the incompleteness of the fossil record with our insufficient knowledge of geology. And he hoped that over time the gaps would be filled and ultimately the theory would be confirmed by the fossil record but this didn't happen. Now we know a lot more than Darwin did and over time with growing knowledge about the fossil record the problem didn't disappear it even became more acute."

"Darwin's attempt to explain the evidence from the fossil record away as lack of knowledge about the fossil record and the incompleteness of the fossil record is no longer tenable. And here's why, let me first give a metaphor and this example was coined by my colleague Paul Nelson. Imagine you have a new hobby and you walk along the beach and you collect what the flood washes in. You collect starfish and shells and snails every day you find something new. But over time repetition sets in and ultimately you reach a day where you only find over and over again what you already found. And then you know that you have sampled enough to know what is out there."

"Exactly this method is applied in paleontology to statistically test the completeness of the fossil record and in paleontology it's called the collector's curve. In most groups of organisms we know that the fossil record is sufficiently complete to be sure that the gaps that we see and the discontinuities we see are not artifacts of undersampling or of an incomplete fossil record but actually data to be explained."

"But there is another reason why this phenomenon cannot be an artifact and that is if it would be an artifact we should expect that over time the gaps get smaller and the apparent non-gradual transitions become more gradual but what we actually find is that with growing knowledge of the fossil record the problems don't disappear but they get even bigger and bigger and this shows us that nature wants to tell us something."


"The phenomenon of sudden appearances in the fossil record is not just an exceptional case say as in the Cambrian explosion but actually is a pattern that is found everywhere. It is beginning with the very origin of life. It goes up to the origin of human culture. It is found in all periods of earth history. It is found in all geographical regions. And it's found over all taxonomical categories from plants and protists to invertebrate and vertebrate animals. So it's a clear pattern that cries out for an explanation."

"We have no transitional fossils for all the animal body plans and the Cambrian explosion. We have no or nearly no transitional fossils for the origin of the different insect orders, for the different mammal orders. And this for example includes bats. And imagine that the oldest fossil bats that we know are already totally modern hardly distinguishable from a modern bat with completely developed wings already with evidence in the ears for echolocation. They are just there and there's no fossil record showing the many steps that were necessary to build up these body plans by incremental changes."


"Douglas Ervin who is one of the world's foremost specialists on the Cambrian explosion and Douglas Ervin said that it looks like the great taxonomic categories, the classes, came first and that the lower taxonomic categories came later and that it doesn't look like that the large differences were built up by the smaller differences."

Rapid evolution cannot be explained by alteration of regulatory networks. Bechly says, "Recent studies have shown that this is not true every major transition in the history of life required new genes and new proteins."

And various environmental changes that might require rapid evolution do not explain the mechanism for producing new genes.


Microevolution (small changes in existing species) cannot be used to explain macroevolution (large changes resulting in new types of species) because,  Bechly explains, it is known, based on the time it would take for a single mutation to become established in a population, that there is insufficient time for new types of species to have evolved by natural processes. Bechly says, 

"The geologically established windows of time that are available for different transitions in the history of life are orders of magnitude too short to allow for the necessary genetic changes to arise and to spread in an ancestral population and this basically shows that Darwin's theory the neo-Darwinian mechanism is not mathematically feasible."

Bechly explains how it is known that there is insufficient time for new types of species to evolve by natural processes. He says the the time it takes for new species to appear in the fossil record is often similar to the average life span of a single species when there should be many intermediate species needed to produce, for example, a new organ or a new body plan.

The problem for the Darwinian mechanism that is posed by the fact that for many transitions we only have time available that equals the lifespan of just one or two species that come successive after each other is the following: To make a major re-engineering you usually think you would require many successive species which are slightly different from each other and then ultimately after a long time and many different species you get a major new body plan or a new organ. But here you see that you would have to make a jump either with one or two species or even within a species to a totally new reconstruction and so even if common ancestry should be correct this shows that this cannot be explained with an unguided process there you need some kind of intelligence be infused from outside the system to make such a big jump within a single species

There should be many intermediate species between a quadrupedal swimming mammal and a whale, yet the transition happened in a third of the lifespan of a single vertebrate species.

"What we found is that to make the transition between the so-called protocetus which were still quadrupedal swimming animals which were propelling in the water with their hind legs to make this transition to fully marine fish-like whales which swim with reduced legs and driven by the tail fluke for this transition there's only one and a half million years of time available that is according to mainstream evolutionaries knowledge.

Just a third of the lifespan of a single vertebrate species to make this re-engineering from a land animal to a fish-like whale that's unbelievable and shows that there is a major theoretical problem for the unguided process postulated by Darwin.

Blechly goes on to explain that naturalistic alternatives to neo-Darwinism do not solve the problem of the origin of genetic information needed for those mechanism to evolve.

And he says intelligent design is the best explanation for the scientific evidence based on logical inference:

In my view the fossil evidence clearly points towards intelligent design because the observed changes happened much too quickly to be explained by an unguided naturalistic process. They have to be explained with an intelligent agent. And for me personally, really a light bulb went on when i discovered that this is not based on an argument from ignorance, not based on a kind of god of the gaps argument, but it's just based on a rational inference to the best explanation. We know that only intelligent causes can cause this effect we look at the evidence and we see that this evidence clearly points to this cause. So ignoring the evidence from the fossil record that points to intelligent design actually is some kind of science denial

At the end of the video Bechly explains that scientists are not free to express belief in intelligent design because doing so would end their careers and that there are probably many more scientists who believe in intelligent design than those who publicly acknowledge it.

At the natural history museum in Stuttgart as soon as i came out as an intelligent design proponent collaborations were stopped, I didn't get funding anymore, my website was deleted, I was removed as head of an exhibition that i had designed, and ultimately I was told that I was no longer welcome and that i was considered to be a risk for the credibility of the institution. So it's not a big surprise that many scientists even if they are secretly doubting Darwinism are not outspoken about it and stay undercover and after my coming out as an ID proponent I was contacted by two famous colleagues who are famous scientists and world-renowned experts in their fields and they told me very confidentially that they have come to doubt the neo-Darwinian process themselves so probably there are more out there than we think.

Gunter Bechly was a curator at a museum in Germany. For the 200 year anniversary of Darwin's birth, he put together an exhibit that included a display to disprove intelligent design.  He said:



In this video, Gunter Bechly explains how the fossil record differs from what evolution by natural selection would produce, and he explains how we know that enough fossils have been found to rule out incompleteness as an explanation for that deviation.

This is by far the best summary and analysis of the most striking scientific reason why Darwinism is totally wrong (the actual fossil record), that I have ever read.

This is by far the best summary and analysis of the most striking scientific reason why Darwinism is totally wrong (the actual fossil record), that I have ever read.

I think that is because Gunter Bechly is a scientist (a paleontologist) talking about his field of expertise.

James Tour, a synthetic chemist, talking about why life could not arise naturally, is also very compelling.



Tour has published a couple of articles explaining his views on the impossibility of life originating naturally.

This one is very long:
https://inference-review.com/article/ani...ic-chemist

This is much shorter:
https://inference-review.com/article/an-...colleagues

But I think the video above is the best explanation of his views.


https://www.jmtour.com/

James M. Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. After spending 11 years on the faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, he joined the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University in 1999 where he is presently the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering.

Here is Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomer talking about the fine tuning of the universe:







https://www.discovery.org/p/gonzalez/

Guillermo Gonzalez is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Astronomy in 1993 from the University of Washington. He has done post-doctoral work at the University of Texas, Austin and at the University of Washington and has received fellowships, grants and awards from such institutions as NASA, the University of Washington, the Templeton Foundation, Sigma Xi (scientific research society), and the National Science Foundation.

Gonzalez has extensive experience in observing and analyzing data from ground-based observatories, including work at McDonald Observatory, Apache Point Observatory and Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory. He is a world-class expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones and a co-founder of the "Galactic Habitable Zone" concept, which captured the October 2001 cover story of Scientific American. Astronomers and astrobiologists around the world are pursuing research based on his work on exoplanet host stars, the Galactic Habitable Zone and red giants.

Gonzalez has also published nearly 70 articles in refereed astronomy and astrophysical journals including The Astrophysical Journal, The Astronomical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Icarus and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. He also is the co-author of the second edition of Observational Astronomy, an advanced college astronomy textbook.

Summary of the video here:
https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/04/vide...uning.html
(The formatting is easier to read at the link.)


Contents
• What is fine tuning?
• Objections
• Calculating Fine-tuning
• Examples of Fine-tuning
o Forces of Nature
o Nucleosynthesis
o Other Examples
• More about Fine-tuning
• Historical Science - Inferring Design
• The Anthropic Principle
• The Multiverse Cannot Explain the Fine-tuning
o The Universe is Improbably Large
o Boltzmann's Brain
o Rejection of Rationality
• Design
________________________________________
1:18

What is fine-tuning?

• Over the past century, scientists have discovered that if certain properties of the universe were changed very slightly from what they are, life could not exist in the universe. These properties have to be within a very narrow range for our universe to be life-permitting (habitable). This sensitivity of the habitability of the universe to small changes in its properties is called fine-tuning.

• This was recognized about 60 years ago by Fred Hoyle, who was not a religious person. Paul Davies, Martin Rees, Max Tegmark, Bernard Carr, Frank Tipler, John Barrow, and Stephen Hawking also believe in fine-tuning.
________________________________________
2:37
A fine-tuned universe
"The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values of a few basic physical constants and is, in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."
- Martin Rees

"The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions."
- Paul Davies

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [i.e. the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
- Stephen Hawking
________________________________________
3:35
Three types of fine tuning
1. Fine-tuning of the laws of nature.

Existence and forms of physical laws (forces, types of particles, quantum principles, dimensionality of space-time).

Examples:

o FG= Gm1m2/r^2
The force of gravity is proportional to the product of two masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation.

o The Pauli Exclusion principle dictates how electrons are arranged in atoms and pretty much determines the whole structure of the periodic table and therefore all of chemistry.

o The Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

2. Fine-tuning of the constants of physics.

Masses of fundamental particles, force strengths, cosmological constant value.

Constants: In Gm1m2 (above), G is a constant. Other constants are:masses of fundamental particles, electron, proton, quarks, constants for electromagnetic force, strong force, weak force, cosmological constant.

3. Fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe.

Initial entropy, initial expansion rate, initial density fluctuations, inflation, matter/antimatter ratio.
Contents
________________________________________
10:10

Possible objection 1

Q: How can you assign a probability when the sample size is precisely one (universe)? You can't say, for example, that 1 in 100 universes are habitable.

A: Run a hypothetical universe creating machine with different settings for the fine-tuning parameters and place a black dot on a chart of the results if it makes a non-habitable universe. Place a white dot when it is habitable. You will get a white dot is in a sea of black dots.
________________________________________
12:12

Possible objection 2

Q: What about universes governed by different laws of nature that allow radically different forms of life than those in our universe? Maybe constants and initial conditions in those universes aren't fine-tuned.

A: The answer to the question is not relevant to explaining the fine-tuning of our universe.
________________________________________
13:59

Possible objection 3

Q: If the constants and initial conditions had been different, we wouldn't exist, but maybe other forms of life would have been possible given the same laws.

A: Several of the examples of fine-tuning would prevent even the precursors to life. No planets, no galaxies, no chemistry! Slight changes in some parameters would result in a universe that is all black holes, all hydrogen, or it would collapse back on itself immediately.
Contents
________________________________________

How do you define fine-tuning?

A 10 cm ruler with an accuracy of 1 mm would have a relative error of 1%. In analogy to fine-tuning, 1% corresponds to the amount of fine-tuning (one part in 10^2), and 10 cm is called the comparison range.

Similarly, for fine-tuning, you need to define a suitable comparison range. It could be theoretical or empirical. A physical property of the universe is usually considered fine-tuned if the life-permitting range is < 10% of the comparison range.
________________________________________
18:25

A sense of big numbers

• There are about 10^13 cells in the human body.

• The number of seconds in the entire history of the universe = 10^17

• Number of subatomic particles in the known universe = 10^80

•Having a precision of one part in 10^30 is like firing a bullet and hitting an amoeba at the edge of the observable universe.

• Some examples of fine-tuning require greater precision than this!
________________________________________
20:05

One- and two-sided fine-tuning

• Some cases of fine-tuning are one-sided, meaning that a parameter falls near the edge of the life-permitting region.

• Some cases of fine-tuning are two-sided:

In one sided fine-tuning, there is either a minimum or a maximum value of the parameter beyond which the universe would be uninhabitable. In two sided fine-tuning there is both a minimum and a maximum value and if the parameter was outside this range, the universe would be uninhabitable.
________________________________________
Example: How a comparison range is calculated to determine the fine-tuning of the forces of nature:
21:24

G0=Strength of gravity

Strength of weak force: 10^31 x G0

Strength of electromagnetism: 10^37 x G0

Strength of strong nuclear force: 10^40 x G0

The natural range of forces in the universe spans 40 orders of magnitude. Therefore 10^40 is an empirical comparison range. It is a lower limit because theoretically it could be greater.
________________________________________
23:12

Examples of fine-tuning

• Fr. Robert Spitzer notes that there are at least 20 independent constants and factors that are fine-tuned to a high degree of precision for life to be possible in the universe.

• The number continues to increase at a rate near one per year.
Contents
________________________________________
24:16

One-sided example 1

The maximum value of the electromagnetic force that allows a periodic table of sufficient length is 14 x 10^37 x G0. Its degree of fine-tuning is:
(14-1)x10^37 x G0/10^40 x G0 ~ 1%.
________________________________________
26:04

One-sided example 2

The maximum value of the gravitational force that allows stars to last at least 10^9 years = 3000 x G0. Its degree of fine-tuning is 3000 x G0/10^40 ~ 1/10^36.

But that is just one effect of gravity. When you consider other effects, the possible values are fewer. If gravity is stronger, a planet must be smaller so that complex life is not crushed, but then the planet will cool too fast if it is small. These multiple constraints put tighter limits on the strength of gravity.
________________________________________
27:37

Fine-tuning analogy

Radio dial stretched across the universe

WKLF ("K-Life"): You better tune your dial to the first Angstrom if you want to tune gravity for life!
________________________________________
28:35

One-sided example 3

If the weak force is decreased by a factor of 30, the initial neutron/proton ratio would be ~0.90, leading to nearly pure helium universe.

The degree of fine-tuning is ~ 1/10^9.

The weak force is also involved in supernova explosions which distribute heavy elements throughout the galaxy. Heavy elements are needed for rocky planets and biological organisms. The weak force also determined the relative numbers of protons and neutrons in the early universe which determined the amount of helium in the universe. The weak force also controls radioactive decay which is responsible for most of the heat in the earth's interior. All three effects of weak the force, geophysical heat, amount of helium in early universe, and supernovae limit the values of the weak force that would permit the universe to be habitable.

________________________________________
31:20 Carbon production

• Life-essential 12C is formed inside stars via the nuclear reaction:
3α ---> 12C

(The symbol α represents an alpha particle, a helium nucleus containing two protons and two neutrons.)

• In the early 1950s, physicists did not think this reaction could operate in stars. Fred Hoyle made a prediction. We're here, as carbon based intelligent life, so somehow 12C must get produced. What would enhance the rate was a then unknown excited state of 12C at 7.7 MeV above the ground state.

• The state was discovered by subsequent experiment.
________________________________________
32:32

Carbon production is fine-tuned

• The production of carbon via the 3α process is an example of fine-tuning.

• Oberhummer et al. (2000, Science) studied the relative production of C and O in stars. They showed that a 0.5% change in the strong nuclear force or a 4% change in the electromagnetic force would lead to large changes in the C/O ratio in the universe (due to changes in the energy of the 12C resonance level).

• But wait, there's more...
________________________________________
34:19

Carbon production is fine-tuned
•A collision of two α particles
produces
8Be
which has a short lifetime of
10^-16sec. This short lifetime prevents runaway fusion that would result in early stellar explosions (before life-essential heavy elements are formed). The instability of 8Be leads to stellar stability. But, its lifetime could not be much shorter, or the reaction to produce carbon could not proceed.

• There is another fine-tuning with 16O, which lacks a resonance level near the typical α particle energy in a star. If such a resonance level existed, most of the carbon would be converted to oxygen.

• Fourthly, a conservation law prevents most of the 16O from being converted to 20Ne (via α-capture), which has a resonance at the right energy.

Because of the fine-tuning, there are comparable amounts of carbon and oxygen in the universe instead of mostly carbon or mostly oxygen. Both are needed to support life. Oxygen is needed for water and energy metabolism for complex intelligent life.

________________________________________
36:50

The cosmological constant (dark energy)

"Our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics says that empty space should have about 120 orders of magnitude more energy than the amount we measure it to have. That is 1 with 120 zeroes after it! How to reduce the amount it has by such a huge magnitude, without making it precisely zero, is a complete mystery. Among physicists, this is considered the worst fine-tuning problem in physics."
- Lawrence Krauss, (Scientific American, Aug. 2004, pp. 83-84)
________________________________________
38:38
The initial entropy of the universe

• The initial state of the space-time (and thus gravity fields) of the early universe were very smooth and homogeneous (very low entropy).

• Present entropy of the universe is much greater than the initial entropy.

• Initially low entropy is required for a habitable universe in which high-entropy structures like stars form out of the surrounding low entropy space-time.

• Roger Penrose estimated that the amount of fine-tuning required of the initial entropy to allow for a habitable universe is 1 part in 10^10^123!

Contents
________________________________________
43:10

Multidimensional fine-tuning

• To be precise, you cannot just change one parameter while holding all others constant. Changing another parameter might compensate for the life-inhibiting effects of a particular parameter change.

• Example: reducing the weak force can be compensated by reducing the mass difference between the proton and neutron in the early universe.

• However, it is usually the case that changing a parameter has multiple different effects. Reducing the weak force also affects the explosion of massive star supernovae and radioactive decay.
________________________________________
46:31

Local fine-tuning

• Each instance of global fine-tuning must be evaluated by its effects on habitability at the "local" level. By local, we mean structures within the universe that are relevant to life. These include galaxies, stars, and planets.

• Knowing the number and ranges of properties of galaxies, stars, and planets will allow us to determine if a change to a particular global parameter will have life-inhibiting effects.

• This involves details of star and planet formation, climate stability, orbital dynamics, stellar nucleosynthesis, etc.


________________________________________
51:33

Some history

"[Evidence for God comes] from the order of the motion of the stars, and of all things under the dominion of the Mind which ordered the universe."
- Plato (Laws 12.966e)

"...when the night had darkened the lands and they should behold the whole sky spangled and adorned with stars; and when they should see ... the rising and settings of all these celestial bodies, ... when they should behold all these things, most certainly they would have judged ... that all these marvelous works are the handiworks of the gods."
- Aristotle (On Philosophy)
________________________________________
52:59

Reconstructing historical events

The universe is an artifact. How do you reconstruct a historical event?

Not all science is laboratory based. Some science is historical. Geology, archeology, cosmology, astronomy are all historical sciences. There is a type of reasoning that is appropriate to historical sciences called abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. It's the way causal explanations are reached in the historical sciences. Abductive reasoning infers unseen causes in the past from facts in the present. If you discover an artifact or a pattern, and you want to determine a causal explanation for it, you apply the principle of uniformitarianism: apply the same kinds of causal explanations we use in everyday life to infer the best explanation for past unobserved events. If an artifact or pattern could be the result of several causes, you set up competing hypotheses based on mutually exhaustive possible explanations and choose the best one. The list of mutually exhaustive possible explanations is: necessity, chance, or design.
________________________________________
If you can rule out chance and necessity you can conclude the cause is design.

A meaningful pattern is improbable and rules out chance.

If you can infer a purpose it gives stronger evidence of design.
________________________________________
59:55

Chance

The conditions that allow for a life-permitting universe are highly improbable.
________________________________________
1:00:24

Necessity

The properties of the universe we observe are not logically necessary. They could have been otherwise.
M-theory explains how you could have other universes with different properties.

(There is a distinction between physical necessity and logical necessity.)
________________________________________
1:01:28

A meaningful pattern

The correlation of the conditions that allow for life and the fine-tuned parameter values of the universe we observe forms a meaningful pattern.
________________________________________
1:01:50

Summary of design argument

We can make a design argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to logical necessity, chance or design.
2. It is not due to logical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.


________________________________________
1:02:47

What is the Anthropic Principle?

• The Anthropic Principle is the recognition that our very existence constrains the properties of the universe we observe to be those that allow our existence. We can only observe a habitable universe!

• It is merely a reminder that we have to take into account observer self-selection bias in interpreting our observations. Our sample of universes is necessarily biased.

• The Anthropic Principle does not explain why there exists a universe fine-tuned for life in the first place.
________________________________________
1:03:30

Why can't the Anthropic Principle explain us?

Illustration:

• Quasars were discovered to be very distant in 1963 from their large redshifts.

• Why are they so luminous?

• Wong answer: because if they weren't, we wouldn't be able to see them. If we see an object in the distant universe, then it must be very luminous.

• Right answer: Quasars are powered by the gravitational energy released by matter falling into a supermassive black hole.

The anthropic principle is stating a necessary condition to make the observation. It is not explaining the cause of the observed phenomenon.

________________________________________
1:05:04

What about the multiverse objection?

• If there exists a vast multiverse, the probabilistic resources available to account for our finely tuned universe by chance are increased. Then, we could appeal to the Anthropic Principle.

• Some cosmologists try to make the case that a multiverse actually exists.

• Chaotic eternal inflation - popular universe generator. Assume for the sake of argument.


________________________________________
1:10:12

Problem 1: Why such a large universe?

"... do we really need the whole observable universe, in order that sentient life can come about? This seems unlikely ... Let us be generous and ask that a region of radius one tenth of the ... observable universe must resemble the universe that we know, but we do not care about what happens outside that radius ... we can estimate how much more frequently the Creator comes across the smaller than the larger regions. The figure is no better than 10^10^123. You see what an incredible extravagance it was (in terms of probability) for the Creator to bother to produce this extra distant part of the universe, that we don't actually need .. for our existence."
- Roger Penrose

If we live in a multiverse generated by a process like chaotic inflation, then for every observer who observes a universe of our size there are 10^10^123 who observe a universe that is just 10 times smaller. That means if the universe really did arise from chaotic inflation, from just a quantum fluctuation of a vacuum, then the universe that we see beyond our region of space, say the nearest few hundred million light years, is not really there its an illusion, if you take this to the extreme ...


________________________________________
[Shortly after 1:05:04]

Boltzmann Brains

"One argument that the universe had a beginning is that it hasn't reached thermal equilibrium or "heat death" yet. If the universe was infinite in age, it would have reached thermal equilibrium an infinity of time ago - so that is evidence of a beginning of time. Ludwig Boltzmann in the 19th century said the whole vast universe could be at thermal equilibrium except we only observe this tiny little patch. This patch is not in thermal equilibrium just by chance ... we have reached heat death but not in this tiny little patch. The bigger the patch is, the more improbable it is so the universe is much vaster than it needs to be to account for our existence. If you just have a solar system pop out of a statistical fluctuation its much more probable than to have this big vast universe pop out of a statistical fluctuation. Then if we see this big vast universe and just our solar system popped out of a statistical fluctuation, then it must be an illusion, The stars that we see are really not there, everything beyond the solar system is an illusion, you have to believe in illusionism so it was rejected."

1:11:31

"The Boltzmann argument is relevant to the multiverse argument today."

"Taken to the extreme we can have a universe pop out of a quantum fluctuation that contains one brain. Boltzmann's brains are by far the most common observers in the multiverse given their small size. The smaller the universe the more probable it is. Its far more probable for a Boltzmann's brain to occur in a multiverse than our vast fine-tuned universe with its long history. And so you're more likely to be a free floating brain than a person with a real history living in a 13.7 billion year old universe. The world we observe then is an illusion. You're the only person who actually exists. All your memories are false. The probability of forming our universe out of a quantum fluctuation at its present state with the appearance of age is more likely than forming it with its finely tuned initial conditions and its long history and so this is called the attack of the Boltzmann brains and its a real conundrum for the multiverse advocates. They basically have to give up realism and the whole world around them is an illusion if they want to believe in multiverse because the most common observer in the multiverse is a Boltzmann's brain."

[Q&A 1:27:00]

If the multiverse theory is true then the most probable reality is that there is no fine-tuning, the universe arose as a quantum fluctuation consisting only of your brain, and everything else is an illusion. To believe in the multiverse is to believe in illusionism.
Contents
________________________________________
1:12:50

Problem 2: The rejection of rationality

• Anything that can happen, no matter how improbable, does happen countless many times in the multiverse.

• Anything can be attributed just as readily to human design or to chance fluctuations of the quantum vacuum of the inflaton field.

• Renders all scientific reasoning and explanations unreliable. Must believe in random miracles!

Multiverse cosmology can explain the origin of all events no matter how improbable, as long as they're not impossible, by reference to chance because of the infinite probabilistic resources it provides. Events we explain in terms of known causes based on ordinary experience are just as readily explained in multiverse cosmology as chance occurrences without any causal antecedent.

There is no way to attribute events to causal physical laws. All causes as seen to be related to effects really aren't. They're just chance fluctuations. Chance events. So you do away with the possibility of all scientific reasoning because scientific explanation and reasoning are unreliable. You must believe in random miracles. The scientific method is dead if you believe in the multiverse.

________________________________________
1:14:24

The best explanation

• Design is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

• From our uniform and repeated experience, objects we know are designed are always associated with minds and never otherwise.

• Multiverse cosmologies invoke causes we have no experience with and Anthropic explanations fail on our universe. But, we do have direct experience with minds.

• The cause of the universe is a transcendent, immaterial, timeless Mind.

"You can think of the universe as a kind of artifact and that artifact points to a designer. If you add to this the evidence for a beginning to the universe from another session, the cosmological argument, then you have a cause of the design already available to you. So if you already accept the cosmological argument there's a cause waiting in the wings to employ in explaining the design of our universe ... the fine tuning. The cause of the universe must be a designer who is transcendent, immaterial and a mind that exists in a timeless eternity and I think that is quite consonant with the Christian idea of God."

[Ninshub]

Excuse me for asking a really dumb, naive question, which simply betrays for my lack of knowledge in this area (many areas?).

If evolution doesn't occur on Darwinian lines, how does a new species "appear" all of a sudden? Can someone paint a picture of this to me, as if you were speaking to a 12-year-old?

Do the ID researchers simply pokes holes in the Darwinian theories, or do they present models of what might be occurring?

Excuse me for asking a really dumb, naive question, which simply betrays for my lack of knowledge in this area (many areas?).

If evolution doesn't occur on Darwinian lines, how does a new species "appear" all of a sudden? Can someone paint a picture of this to me, as if you were speaking to a 12-year-old?

Do the ID researchers simply pokes holes in the Darwinian theories, or do they present models of what might be occurring?

Materialists hypothesize the existence of invisible and undetectable dark matter and dark energy to explain a gravitational phenomena that otherwise defies explanation. They have no explanation of what the dark mater is, if it is particles what type of particles, or what the dark energy is, if it some type of waves or something else.

Similarly ID proponents make a logical inference that since intelligence is the only phenomenon we know of that can create, design, and produce information, that without any good natural explanation, intelligence is the best explanation for events like the creation of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe and the information needed for life to arise and evolve. 

As scientists they don't say more than they believe there is evidence for. As far as I know, none of the scientists investigating ID have said how they think the actual intelligence interacts with matter.

Excuse me for asking a really dumb, naive question, which simply betrays for my lack of knowledge in this area (many areas?).

If evolution doesn't occur on Darwinian lines, how does a new species "appear" all of a sudden? Can someone paint a picture of this to me, as if you were speaking to a 12-year-old?

Do the ID researchers simply pokes holes in the Darwinian theories, or do they present models of what might be occurring?

I don't think we are at the point where that even gets into the discussion at a serious level, although it is an obvious question. Biblical creationists have an answer, of course, but we don't want to go there. Most evolutionary scientists will take the natural selection answer without daring to question it.

There are accounts from channels and other spiritual commentators about "teams" of designers in the spiritual realms creating new body configurations but I really have no idea how seriously we can take such stories. Nor have I any clue about how such creations might be introduced. Nevertheless, the Cambrian Explosion is a cautionary tale for those who insist on claiming that our world had billions of years to evolve organisms from single cells to horses and humans. We are not talking about suddenly as in overnight but we are talking about suddenly in geological timespans. I'm assuming those purported teams of designers didn't have to worry about earthly timespans.

I hope this is the right place to post this.  I was reading the comments under a Dr Douglas Axe video and I came across this.  I'm not a statistician or mathematician so I can't vouch for its accuracy.  Maybe somebody else can look at this.

A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)

A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology.

Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist.  Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.

Here is the video in case it is relevant.  I haven't seen it yet.

It is precisely because of those associations that ID has not been (and probably never will be) taken seriously by those who don't follow the arguments.

People like Meyer and Behe are serious scientists who are also Christians and also funded by Christian organisations. That's a pity in my view because they have important things to say which, if taken seriously, could change the conversation radically. Meyer has often stressed the point that, although his personal opinion leads him to believe that the God of his religion is the designer, the science does not offer any such conclusion.

I must admit, I haven't seen him say that so explicitly - but I'm glad he does, because anchoring ID to Christianity - not even to all major religions, is absurd.

All it says is that there is evidence of design and, having read some of that evidence, I have to agree. Yet if you look for debates on Youtube, evolutionists are either reluctant to debate him or, when they do, they focus their argument on his religion rather than his science. That does nothing to help the uncommitted and interested observer.

I'm afraid this is common in science. Nobody wanted to debate the astronomer Halton Arp because he showed evidence that red shifts are not always related to the distance of objects in the sky.

Actually though when they resort to attacking Meyer's science on the grounds that he is a Christian, they weaken their arguments such as they are.

David

Bryan Callen had Myers and Shermer on his show, it was a pretty cordial discussion though it felt rather "American" that Shermer peppered in political stuff - thankfully not too much but it's a pet peeve of mine when people do this.

Sadly I also felt they never dug deep enough into anything, getting stuck on a kind of basic level.

That said I thought Myers did a good job presenting his case.

Yeah, Shermer seems to have mellowed in recent years. I was a little gob-smacked to discover, a few years back, that he and Deepak Chopra are good friends and I have seen one of his own podcasts with Stephen Meyer (see below) and they seem to be on very friendly terms. By the way - you did mean Meyer (not Myers - as in PZ Myers - I assume).

https://youtu.be/On-4lOWuWQQ