Intelligent Design Is Not Science

I would like to take this opportunity to rebut another argument used by the ID community, called the Fine-Tuning argument. It is argued for by such notables as Hugh Ross, William Lane Craig and Robin Collins. The argument goes like this: 1) The universe is fine tuned for life. 2) If the universe is fine tuned for life, then it is likely that an intelligent being fine tuned it. 3) Probably, the universe was fine tuned by an intelligent being. There are several objections to this argument that I believe nullify the argument: 1) This premiss rests on the assumption that, if the physical constants were different, that the formation of life would be impossible, or extremely unlikely. What evidence is there for this? Many proponents, such as Davies or Barrow have put forth examples of the effect of changing these constants, using mathematical models of the universe: -If Gravity were slightly stronger or weaker, the universe would either collapse in on itself before stars could form, or the universe would expand to such an extent that stars could form. -If the electromagnetic force were slightly different, life as we know it could not have formed. And so on. However, in all of these cases, the constants are changed independently of the other constants. But this isn't how the universe works. The laws of physics are interrelated, having arose from the structure, and ratio of matter and energy with respect to space-time. Hence, if more matter had formed at the Big Bang, then the universe may have expanded at a quicker rate, due to the increased violence of the explosion, thus counteracting the increased gravitational force. As for other changes, such as the electromagnetic constant, this may make human life impossible, but it doesn't show that all forms of life would be incapable of forming. If we define intelligent life as anything complex and structured enough to be self conscious, then the only important factor is time. But we have good evidence that the average universe would live long enough to produce life. This evidence comes in the form of work by Victor J Stenger, specifically a program called "Monkey God". This program calculates the lifespan of an average star in relation to four physical constants which impress upon this value, rather than just one (http://www.colorado.edu...). Stenger has concluded from this study that "... it is safe to conclude that the conditions for the appearance of a universe with life are not so improbable as those authors, enamored by the anthropic principle, would have you think." 2) Even if the existence of life given the possible values of the physical constants is improbable, this doesn't make ID the best or only explanation. One perfectly acceptable alternative thesis is the multiverse hypothesis, the hypothesis that ours isn't the only universe. Under this hypothesis, different universes have different values, arising from the randomness of the Big Bang, and that, therefore, it is statistically likely that at least one of these universe's, ours, would contain life. Some counter-objections have been raised against the multiverse model: - There is no evidence for the hypothesis. This, however, doesn't seem to be a problem for the hypothesis, as there is just as much supporting evidence for the design hypothesis. Nonetheless, arguably some evidence has been found for the existence of other universes. Harvard educated Professor Lee Smolin, (http://en.wikipedia.org...), has put forth a multiverse hypothesis known as the "Fecund Universes" or Black Hole Selection theory, which states that universes can bud off of the singularities in Black Holes. The theory also states that the laws of one universe are "inherited" by the child universe, with variations. From this point, something akin to Natural Selection takes over, as the universes that have the longest lifespans produce the most Black Holes, and thus have the most offspring, making it likely for universes with constants necessary for life to form. The only ad hoc law that this model presupposes is the method of inheritance, which hasn't yet been explained. There is however, evidence to support this theory: firstly, the preponderance of Black Holes in our universe. These Black Holes require that the universe be mostly filled with a deadly, radiation filled vacuum, which in fact makes most of the universe unsuitable for life. Secondly, studies have shown that when atoms are split in controlled conditions, they produce the same ratio of subatomic particles that were produced by the Big Bang singularity, showing that the Big Bang singularity and Black Hole singularities are probably similar in many respects. All of this is outlined in Richard Carrier's "Sense and Goodness Without God", which I would recommend to all interested in the subject of multiverse hypotheses. - The multiverse hypothesis goes against Ockam's razor. This is a basic misunderstanding of the multiverse hypothesis, as, even though the hypothesis posits a multiplicity of universes, these universes are explained by the theory put forward. As such, that there are many universes doesn't mean that we have to account for each individual universe, but that we can account for all of them using a single theory. Furthermore, the design hypothesis seems more ad hoc, as it posits the existence of a non-material personal being, a being for which we have no explanation, and no knowledge of how such a being would fine tune the physical constants. For these reasons, the Fine Tuning argument is untenable and the ID theory remains unsubstantiated.