The false theories that give birth to false philosophy

False theories give birth to philosophy not flase philosophy. When you practice philosophy by questioning authority.

Hi Xris,

I'm saying that God existed before the universe did.

So the universe had begining? so what do you think the begining looked like?

Hi Xris,

I cannot say what the beginning of the universe looked like, I can only imagine.

Hi Fanman,

First of all, apologies for talking about you, not to you, earlier. It was very rude. It's just that I've read a lot of posts by people arguing in favour of creationism and some standard things always come up time and time again. And they're mostly based on really basic misunderstandings of what theories like evolution actually say and what the scientific method does and does not attempt to achieve.

what "standard" fallacies am I guilty of committing? Perhaps you could be more specific?

The one that jumps out immediately, and is used by most creationists, is conflating the Big Bang theory with the theory of Evolution. You do it extensively throughout your post. E.g:

...I have made the choice that the universe was created by God. And not by a Big Bang and evolution.

Whatever the universe was made by, I doubt it was evolution! The Big Bang and Evolution are related to each other only in the sense that everything is related. They do not go hand in hand.

Another one is the "argument" that could be characterized as:

"The Big Bang is an explosion. Explosions destroy things. Therefore the Big Bang can't have happened because it didn't destroy the universe."

Taking the metaphorical language of physics literally; simply interpretting the often daft language of physics as literal everyday concepts is clearly ridiculous. It would be like taking the fact that quarks are deemed to have different "colours" and "flavours" literally.

Physicists are not poets. They're not known for their verbal eloquance. Concepts in physics that are far far removed from everyday experiences are extraordinarly difficult to properly convey in everyday language, not designed for the purpose. So when things that look like everyday words like "big" or "bang" are used, it's ridiculous to simply search for something we know about from our direct experience, assume that's what they're talking about, and then stop looking. The term "Big Bang", like many concepts in physics, is the tip of a huge conceptual iceberg. To understand what they mean by it you have to learn about all the stuff under the surface, not just think "Big Bang sounds a bit like explosion. I've seen explosions before. I guess that's what they mean."

The Big Bang, if it happened, is still happening. It's an expansion. Some people (not Xris) think the universe appears to be expanding so it must have been smaller in the past. Others (like Xris) now, and in the past, have disagreed. Hubble's Steady State theory was one of the most famous examples. Most physicsts, now, think it probably is happening.

---

Anyway, let me address some parts of your posts individually:

As far as I am aware, the concept of proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true

It depends what kind of proof you're talking about.

As I understand it, the main objective of science is to discover the nature and composition of the world around us.

I disagree. I would say the main objective of science is to find patterns in Nature and use those patterns to make predictions. Whether you interpret that as discovering the nature and composition of the world is probably a philosophical question.

our own existence is a result of billions of years of coincidences and evolution

You use the word coincidence a lot. Many creationists use the word "accident" for a similar purpose. It seems to be to imply a kind of frivolous pointlessness. But coincidence just means two things happening at the same time. At the heart of all this is an unwillingness to accept the idea that intelligence (us) can arise as the result of anything other than another intelligence. The circularity of this requirement is obvious.

Science argues that the universe has no creator.

No it doesn't. Science says nothing about a creator, one way or the other. It identifies patterns in Nature.

Does science explain these emotions too a result of coincidence and evolution, or does it suppose that emotions are a result of chemical reactions inside the body? If so how does it explain empathy?

How does religion explain empathy? It pushes the problem one intelligent being further up the chain and then stops there.

I don't know for certain where empathy comes from. I don't know anything for certain. But it's certainly an extremely good survival tool that has served us and the other animals that possess it extraordinarly well. It's not difficult to see how it could have evolved. And it's not difficult to research what characteristics we would expect it to have if it did evolve. Of course, it might not have evolved. But that's the best explanation available. Simply saying that it was created by another intelligence is, as I've said, not an explanation.

We cannot demonstrate an example of where coincidence has created something from nothing, therefore why do scientists suppose that the Big Bang created the universe, and why has such an occrance never happened again, why were other intelligent life-forms not created by evolution except us humans, or other planets which are capable of supporting life?

Again, you use the word "coincidence" meaninglessly. The sentence: "two things happening at the same time has created something" is nonsense. It has no meaning. Scientists observe evidence and then decide whether the Big Bang happened. Why has it never happened again? What do you mean? Why is it not happening now in your garden? Why does it not happen every few hundred years? Does something have to happen constantly under all circumstances in order to have happened once?

Why do you say that there are no intelligent life forms other than humans? What do you count as intelligent? Don't you think Australopithicus or Home Erectus were intelligent? What about other creatures living today? How do you know what other creatures live on other planets? You're sure that of the 100 billion stars in our galaxy (one of 100 billion in the known universe) the Sun is the only one with a planet harbouring life?

All your questions have as their premises assumptions that you obviously can have no clue are true or false.

Science cannot answer many, many questions - therefore why do we put such faith in it?

If we do have any respect for science then it is simply because it seems to have had some success so far. That's no guaruntee of success in the future and no guaruntee that it can answer every question. You credit Science with far too much power. It simply finds patterns in observations of nature and uses them to make predictions. So far, nature seems to contain patterns. If it can answer more questions in the future, great. If not, never mind.

With regards to education, I think that it is wrong to teach a scientific theory which itself cannot be proven to be the actual truth.

Then I guess we can't teach any scientific theories at all. This is the kind of statement which suggests the depth to which you misunderstand what science does and doesn't say about the world.

The dilemma becomes "do we have faith in what science is telling us or do we have faith in God," as both can present very compelling arguements.

They are entirely unrelated. A common creationist device is to try to paint science as another faith position. Belief in a particular scientific theory has nothing to do with faith. It is about the extent to which it describes and predicts the evidence. Belief in the scientific method itself is based on the simple observation that it seems to have had some degree of success so far, so we might as well keep using it until it stops being useful.

Due to my experiences and the evidence that I am confronted with, I have made the choice that the universe was created by God. And not by a Big Bang and evolution.

I entirely agree with you that the Universe was not created by evolution. We will never know for sure whether the Big Bang happened (is happening) but there is some evidence that it did/is.

I mean, what evidence can be shown or how can it be demonstrated, that an explosion can be the 'coincidental' creator of life or matter? ... Explosions can be shown to destroy life and matter, not create it.

Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever said that the Big Bang is a hand grenade thrown into the Universe. And again that strange "coincidence" word.

I mean, how does one isolate the element which causes a species to adapt to its conditions? I think that scientists would argue that the element is survival, but how does a species 'will' or 'need' to survive, activate evolution without intelligent programming?

I guess this quote is the one that seems to show, more than any other, that you haven't understood the absolute basics of how evolution supposedly works. Nothing wrong with not understanding. I don't understand brain surgery. But I don't pass judgements on it as if I do.

It's not about will or need. The basic elements are this:

Offspring resemble their parents, but not exactly. There is random variation.

Life is hard. Many, or most, offspring don't live long enough to reproduce.

The inevitable result of these two simple directly observable facts is that, over many many generations, the individuals that are best suited to their environment tend to produce more offspring which tend to inherit that suitability.

We could have a longer discussion about all the evidence for evolution, but it really would save time if you just find a good book about it. To be honest though, I can't bring myself to believe that the quote from you, above, is in good faith and that you really don't know anything at all about what the theory of evolution says. So I'm genuinely baffled as to why you would say such things.

Can science even answer with 100% accuracy the origins of life? No it can't, yet we put such faith in sciennce. Why?

No it can't. Science is not about anwering anything with 100% accuracy. If you want 100% accuracy the only subject is mathematics.

As I've said, we observe that science seems so far to have had a fair amount of success in what it sets out to acheive - finding the patterns in Natures.

To say that we have "faith" in science is a bit like saying we have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's not about faith. It's about induction. It's done it every day of my life so far. There's a strong pattern. I expect that pattern to continue.

Hi Steve.

I admire excellent work and your post was just that. Calm, reasonable and clear.
One more misunderstanding you did not address is the "nothing" often mentioned.
Thus far there is no evidence for absolute "nothing".
One of the problem of scientific writing, is it is often done by those who are more writers than scientists.

Regards John.

Correction: In the previous post I referred to "Hubble's Steady State Theory" as a well known counter theory to the Big Bang theory. I should have said Hoyle's Steady State Theory!

John: Thanks!

First of all, apologies for talking about you, not to you, earlier. It was very rude.

I refer this to Scott as moderator.
But I don't think it is rude, on the contray it shows that you have paid attention to someone's idea and thought it worth remarking on. The assumption in Web communications that we can all read everything and participate . If the communication had been hurtful to the persons's identity rather than contesting or agreeing the persons's idea that would be a complaint, but when we are doing philosophy we set our ideas up to be challenged in the proper tradition of Socrates.

I do not prescribe to any theory. I only oppose concepts becoming a cause and ignoring the fact they could be wrong.
I believe certain sciences have become self serving and have a life of their own. If they make one false conclusion from an observation then every observation that contradicts the original conclusion requires explaination. We then find invention becomes science. If by the original observation the universe should have been expanding at a certain rate and it is not, what do they do? They create dark matter, this answers their question. So where is it? Not one ounce has been seen or found. I thought I was the only fool not believing this, Big Bang or rapidly expanding universe. Why should it go against all logical thoughts or beliefs and even oppose all physical laws and still be accepted? So I find out many scientists oppose it and like me they are marginalised and classified as apostates. Should I question the majority of scientists? Should I have to confront every debate where the BB is used with authority? I admire science but I will not treat it any differently than any faith driven dogma I encounter. The high ideals of science should be defended but not all science. Just imagine if one day cosmologist had to admit, no black holes ,no dark matter, no white holes, no BB, no expanding universe. Could they actualy admit it?

Hi Steve3007,

Thanks for the apology, it is appreciated. I think though, that you have turned the discussion more towards semantics, meaning and understanding, rather than the topic's title? When I stated that I don't think that the universe was created by the Big Bang and evolution, it is implied we humans and life as we know it are included in the universe that was created. Therefore evolution - which is essentially the development as life as we know it, is a direct consquence of the Big Bang. The two theories are inextricably linked in my opinion; in that evolution would not have been possible without the Big Bang. The Big Bang is theorised as being responsible for the creation of the universe, and evolution is theorised as being responsible for life as we know it.

I am aware that the concept of the Big Bang is not just described as a simple explosion, but I would argue that in essence, that is what is theorised to have occured - "rapid expansion." In much the same way as with an explosion, can the rapid expansion of anything we know of be shown to have created life or the possibility for life? In my view, from what I have read, the concept of the Big Bang does not have enough evidence to establish it as being true. It is just a theory. Especially when the universe displays the concepts of time, order and intelligent design. How did the unintellgent rapid exansion of the universe create those concepts?

With regards to the main objective of science, I think that the genre of science is so vast that both of our explanations of its main objectives could be correct. You're right, I would argue that we were created by an intelligent being (God), and that-that being is the first cause, or first intelligence (there being no intelligence prior to that being). That said, my belief is based upon religious faith, which you don't have. So I can understand why the concept of an intelligent creator would become a circular argument for you, as in "which intelligence created the intelligence that created us, or who created God."

I would say that religion (Christianity) explains empathy as putting God first and loving our neighbour. It generally teaches and advocates the importance of caring for amd understanding our fellow man. I do not believe that empathy could of evolved from something that did not have empathy. For me coincidence is something that happens by chance i.e. - The Big Bang leading to evolution. I don't think that such an occurance is possible, what are the chances? What are the chances that the sun, earth and moon just happened to be where they are by coincidennce, considering the size of the universe, surely the chances of such coincidences are infinitesimal, what is the correlative pattern of these coincidental occurances? Is it not the concept of design?

Xris:

The picture you paint of some scientists as jealous high priests guarding the sacred unquestionable knowledge presumably comes from your personal experience of reading evidence which you know to contradict currently accepted theories (your example being the Big Bang) and which you know that they deliberately ignore. You’ve asked me before to Google “Big Bang wiki”, but this just gives a condensed and simplified account of the standard evidence for the Big Bang. Could you point me to any interesting sources that demonstrate why the supposed evidence for the Big Bang is less convincing than the evidence for a different theory?


Belinda:
Thanks for your comment. I’m sure you’re right, but I guess an unnecessary apology is better than the lack of one when it is due. I hope the moderator agrees!


Fanman:

Thanks for the apology, it is appreciated.

No problem. Whether or not the apology was necessary I don’t see any harm in explicitly stating that I think it’s important for these sorts of discussions to be as good humoured as possible, if only because people’s ability to comprehend each others’ arguments tends to diminish the louder they shout.

I think though, that you have turned the discussion more towards semantics, meaning and understanding, rather than the topic's title?

Well, I guess the essence of the topic’s title, as repeated by Xris in his most recent post, is the proposition that some areas of science (i.e. Cosmology and Particle Physics) have abandoned the scientific method and become more akin to faith. He proposes that these scientists hold dogmatic positions and will not tolerate anybody proposing alternative theories or evidence; that they see these competitors as something like heresy and actively suppress them.

In order to discuss that proposition I think it’s only natural to talk about the relationships and differences between religion and science, and the definition of the scientific method, as we have just been doing. And, as with most philosophical discussions, semantics comes into it because it’s not possible to have any meaningful discussion unless you have at least some agreement as to the meanings of words. For example, the words “particle” and “coincidence” have been used in this discussion in ways that I think require those words to be more clearly defined if we can understand what Xris and yourself mean by them.

When I stated that I don't think that the universe was created by the Big Bang and evolution, it is implied we humans and life as we know it are included in the universe that was created. Therefore evolution - which is essentially the development as life as we know it, is a direct consquence of the Big Bang. The two theories are inextricably linked in my opinion.

If you define the Big Bang as the event that is proposed to have created the Universe (which I’m not happy with, but more on that later) then everything that exists could be said to be a consequence of the Big Bang, including all other physics. So why do you single out Evolution as creating the Universe along with the BB? Why not say: “I don’t believe the Universe was created by the Big Bang and Hooke’s Law”?

The fact is, Evolution is not a necessary consequence of the Big Bang. It’s perfectly feasible that the Universe could have existed without life and therefore without Evolution. Obviously we would not then be here to talk about it. But if you say that the Universe doesn’t exist without somebody there to observe it you’re entering a whole other philosophical discussion, which probably involves talking about trees falling over in empty forests, and other amusing things. And then we’ll probably get onto Quantum Mechanics and Xris will get all riled up again!

in that evolution would not have been possible without the Big Bang. The Big Bang is theorised as being responsible for the creation of the universe, and evolution is theorised as being responsible for life as we know it.

Evolution would certainly not be possible without a Universe in which to happen. Neither would anything else.

I am aware that the concept of the Big Bang is not just described as a simple explosion, but I would argue that in essence, that is what is theorised to have occured - "rapid expansion." In much the same way as with an explosion, can the rapid expansion of anything we know of be shown to have created life or the possibility for life?

The expansion of the Universe doesn’t create life. If you interpret the measurements of the red-shift of distant galaxies as meaning that they are receding from each other (as most but not all physicists do) then the Universe is expanding now. That expansion is not the cause of Evolution. It may be related to Evolution in the sense that everything is related to everything else. But then you might as well say that everything is the cause of Evolution.

It is theorized that the expansion was more rapid in the past. This may or may not be true. But it has no direct relationship to the theory of Evolution, any more than the current rate of expansion does. They are unrelated.

In my view, from what I have read, the concept of the Big Bang does not have enough evidence to establish it as being true. It is just a theory.

Again, by saying “just a theory” I have to say that you make a very old well worn mistake made by many many other people arguing for creationism of not knowing what a theory is.

The Theory of Relativity is just a theory. But it is also, on current evidence, true. It is therefore taught as such in physics lectures. Many things that are theories are also sufficiently probably to be regarded as “true”.
In science, a theory is a proposed explanation (or perhaps better to say description) of a set of empirical evidence. The extent to which it is “true” is related to the extent to which it fits the evidence and successfully predicts future discoveries of evidence.

A fundamental characteristic is that it is falsifiable. That means it can never ever be 100% shown to be true. That is an inevitable consequence of the fact that theories contain propositions about things that have not been observed. That’s their whole point. They are generalizations. They take a pattern of empirical observations and propose “this pattern in universal. i.e. It happens even when we’re not watching.” For example, one of the generalizations implicit in Big Bang theory is the proposition that, as the Universe appears to be expanding now, it was probably expanding before we observed it too. It may not have been. It may have started expanding just before humans noticed it. But that is considered unlikely. There are others based on other pieces of evidence, like the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the distribution of light elements in the Universe.

The more evidence we find that fits the theory, the more we tend to rely on it and think of it as true. But it’s never all or nothing. The theory slides up and down the certainty scale according to the evidence. It can reach the bottom, but it can never reach the top.

If we find evidence that appears to contradict the theory and we are sure of our evidence then the theory has to be modified or replaced. The more past evidence has been found to contradict the theory the more we have to measure and re-measure our new evidence to be sure we haven’t made a mistake. All of this is derived from simple common sense. If I saw an object floating in front of me, apparently in defiance of gravity, I would not immediately throw away Newton/Einstein’s laws and theories. I would look for other explanations first. When the physicists at CERN recently seemed to discover neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, they re-measured and re-measured and thought and thought and finally put their results out to the wider community to look at. This is not because they have a dogmatic attachment to the Theory of Relativity (which states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum). It’s because it’s such a well evidenced theory that it would require rock solid counter-evidence to overturn it.

Now, returning to the Big Bang theory. Is there enough evidence to push it sufficiently up the confidence scale to be taught as current truth, along with all the rest? I don’t know for sure. I’m not a specialist in the field. The majority of specialists seem to say yes. Xris seems to suggest that they do this because they all have the same vested interest in hiding the truth. Well, that’s what this discussion is supposed to be about. Perhaps we’ll get back to that soon!

But what do we teach in physics lectures/lessons? We teach what is currently understood to be the most likely explanation for the currently available evidence along with previous understandings with their pros and cons and reasons for being superseded. What else could we teach?

Especially when the universe displays the concepts of time, order and intelligent design. How did the unintellgent rapid exansion of the universe create those concepts?

Are you talking about the intelligent design of living things? Or would you expand that to include other things?
“Unintelligent rapid expansion” did not create anything. Nobody claims that it did.

With regards to the main objective of science, I think that the genre of science is so vast that both of our explanations of its main objectives could be correct.

Maybe. But I think my definition is more cautious and less likely to stray into metaphysics. If you want some good common sense down-to-Earth wisdom about what science tries to achieve I’d suggest looking on YouTube for interviews with the physicist Richard Feynman. As he points out, we don’t know whether we’re finding out some deep and meaningful “reason” for everything by studying physics. And speculating about whether we are is fun in philosophy forums but it’s not science. All we can definitely say about science is that it is about finding patterns in our observations of what appears to be a world. If some particular current theory continues to be valid in the future, great. If not, great! Either way, we’ve learnt something. I truly believe that this is the attitude of most physicists and they are not the cynical high priests, jealously guarding the sacred unquestionable knowledge, that Xris paints them as. I think it would be difficult to think of a less accurate description.

You're right, I would argue that we were created by an intelligent being (God), and that-that being is the first cause, or first intelligence (there being no intelligence prior to that being). That said, my belief is based upon religious faith, which you don't have. So I can understand why the concept of an intelligent creator would become a circular argument for you, as in "which intelligence created the intelligence that created us, or who created God."

And I have nothing against your faith. But in this discussion you are presenting what seem to be attempts at logical arguments for the existence an intelligent creator, like your appeal to improbability, below. You’re not simply asserting your faith. So I naturally feel I should point out the holes in those arguments. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to go around presenting an argument when it is full of holes! I know I wouldn’t. I would want somebody to point them out to me. My personal view is that good arguments are strengthened if they are challenged and can fend off those challenges. And bad arguments don’t deserve to survive. An argument that is never challenged has no demonstrated strength.

I would say that religion (Christianity) explains empathy as putting God first and loving our neighbour.

The sounds to me like a description of what our empathy causes us to do, not an explanation of its origin. An empathy that is part of our evolved nature could have that effect. I would say that it does.

It generally teaches and advocates the importance of caring for amd understanding our fellow man.

I can’t argue with that! Amen!

I do not believe that empathy could of evolved from something that did not have empathy.

Fair enough. You have a right to your beliefs. I simply observe that the evidence suggests that it did. Living creatures constantly turn non-living stuff into living stuff. So it’s certainly possible for that to happen.

For me coincidence is something that happens by chance i.e. - The Big Bang leading to evolution.

As I’ve said, this is only true in the sense that the creation of the Universe led to everything in that Universe. It’s true by definition. I think it’s an odd use of the word “coincidence” to say that “The event that created the Universe led to the existence of stuff that’s in the Universe. What a coincidence!”

I don't think that such an occurance is possible, what are the chances? What are the chances that the sun, earth and moon just happened to be where they are by coincidennce, considering the size of the universe, surely the chances of such coincidences are infinitesimal, what is the correlative pattern of these coincidental occurances? Is it not the concept of design?

This is the familiar fallacy that could perhaps be characterised as:

“It’s a miracle that my legs are exactly long enough to reach from my body to the ground!”

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there are a million planets in the Universe but that there is only a one in a million chance of any given planet having the right conditions for the development of life. There would then be a fair chance that at least one of those planets would harbour life. If the inhabitants of that planet were to learn these probabilities they might consider the fact that their particular planet is uniquely well suited to life, against all the odds, to be a miracle. Would it be? No. Somebody had to be the one.

Similarly, the person who wins the lottery this week can’t really regard it as a miracle. Somebody had to win it!
When you say “What are the chances that the sun, earth and moon just happened to be where they are?” the answer can be made vanishingly small depending on how accurate you want to be. But it’s meaningless. I look out of my window as I type this and see a leaf fall from a tree and hit the ground 1.4356 metres from the garden wall (let’s say). What are the chances of that? Very small. A miracle? No. It had to fall somewhere.

The general name for this kind of idea is the anthropic principle.

As I said earlier, you’re presenting this as a logical argument for the existence of an intelligent creator. Not simply asserting your faith in that existence. So it seems reasonable for me to point out the holes in it.

There is a slightly deeper point which is often made about the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants of the Universe. If Planck’s constant, or the universal gravitational constant were slightly different then the physics of the Universe would be such that life would not be possible. The conclusion drawn by many is that an intelligent creature must have decided that it wanted life to exist so setup the Universe in such a way that it would evolve.

Another idea notes that the total entropy of the Universe is increasing all the time and that maybe a creator placed it in its original state of extremely low entropy.

These are nice ideas. Maybe they’re true. But I don’t see them as necessarily true. Either way we can never know and science, believe it or not, has nothing to say on subjects to which we can never know, even in principle, the answers. It leaves that to philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0L ... re=related

This is youtube as well and it needs patients to wade through but it is very interesting to say the least.Thanks xris

Hi Steve3007,

Before I attempt to reply at length, I just wanted say thanks for writing such a brilliant, educative, well thought-out and non-biased post.

Steve3007 says

There is a slightly deeper point which is often made about the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants of the Universe. If Planck’s constant, or the universal gravitational constant were slightly different then the physics of the Universe would be such that life would not be possible. The conclusion drawn by many is that an intelligent creature must have decided that it wanted life to exist so setup the Universe in such a way that it would evolve.

Steve3007, if you didn't see it already, the November book-of-the-month in this forum tackled this very issue of fine-tuning with physicist Victor Stenger's The Fallacy of Fine Tuning. Stenger takes the approach that the "fine tuning" is an artifact of the very mathematics humans have created to interpret the world, so it is another manifestation of the anthropic principle. My review may be of interest to you.

By the way, my favorite anecdote on the anthropic principle is from Richard Feynman, which I'll paraphrase here: "As I was driving home last night, I noticed the license plate of the car in front of me was ARW 327. Can you believe it? Of all the millions of cars in the state, to think that that specific license number should be right in front of me. Amazing!"

Steve3007 says

There is a slightly deeper point which is often made about the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants of the Universe. If Planck’s constant, or the universal gravitational constant were slightly different then the physics of the Universe would be such that life would not be possible. The conclusion drawn by many is that an intelligent creature must have decided that it wanted life to exist so setup the Universe in such a way that it would evolve.

Steve3007, if you didn't see it already, the November book-of-the-month in this forum tackled this very issue of fine-tuning with physicist Victor Stenger's The Fallacy of Fine Tuning. Stenger takes the approach that the "fine tuning" is an artifact of the very mathematics humans have created to interpret the world, so it is another manifestation of the anthropic principle. My review may be of interest to you.

By the way, my favorite anecdote on the anthropic principle is from Richard Feynman, which I'll paraphrase here: "As I was driving home last night, I noticed the license plate of the car in front of me was ARW 327. Can you believe it? Of all the millions of cars in the state, to think that that specific license number should be right in front of me. Amazing!"

Such inane comments do not add to the debate. How can you imagine such stupid remarks count as evidence? The argument is valid one and to reduce it to simple sarcasm gives me reason to believe Feynman has difficulty proving his point of view. It ignores or side steps the real argument and turns it into semantic nonsense. Just like my link was ignored when I first posted it and probable will be now.

How can you imagine such stupid remarks count as evidence?

Because the evidence for the anthropic principle lies preciscely within those who believe in it. So it becomes easy to see the type of person who needs to believe in it...and the type of person who would categorically proclaim Feynman's remarks to be stupid.