Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Anthropic principle

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2005,12:53    Over on PT, there were a bunch of comments concerning anthropic principle concerns in the "Skeptic on Dembski" thread (now moved to the BW). So here's a spot to continue the conversation. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

MDPotter Posts: 12 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,15:37    No, there is no 'there' there; from my reading people like Island at his anthropic-principle.org site are applying the 'principle' in exactly the manner the originator of the idea, Carter himself, warned against. Just a pragamtic filter for scientific objectivity distorted into an amazingly silly idea draped in 'shiny objects' for the easily distracted.

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2006,23:06    Is this about the SLOT again?

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2006,02:27    Quote (MDPotter @ Aug. 22 2005,20:37) No, there is no 'there' there; from my reading people like Island at his anthropic-principle.org site are applying the 'principle' in exactly the manner the originator of the idea, Carter himself, warned against. Just a pragamtic filter for scientific objectivity distorted into an amazingly silly idea draped in 'shiny objects' for the easily distracted. Agreed.  Island seems to be under the silly delusion that he can prove the universe specifically created us in order to increase entropy, thereby causing the universe to expand, which was the goal of the universe in creating us. If you are saying, "Huh?"  I was too.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,07:49    If I recall, there are actually two versions of the "anthropic" principle. What these guys are talking about is also known as the "strong" anthropic principle, i.e., that the universe must have been created with us mind (which strikes me as, if nothing else, a colossal misallocation of resources). But the "weak" anthropic principle basically just says, since we cannot exist in a universe that cannot support life, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in a universe that can in fact support life. Interesting that two principles having similar names can essentially be opposites in terms of their support of ID/Creationism. One would tend to support it, while the other severely undermines it. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard