The intelligibility of the Universe

[gluadys]

In another thread RudolphHucker posted this link to a series on YouTube interviewing the scientists who recently published a book called Privileged Planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdxRj49m5c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcaptporridge%2Ecom%2Fbb%2Findex%2Ephp%3Ftopic%3D1446%2E0%3Btopicseen


It's a very interesting 6-part series (about 15 minutes each) and offers some interesting perspectives on the possibility that the habitability of the earth and our existence may not be just a chance result of impersonal natural forces.

What interests me is that they come to this conclusion totally through science and scientific method and complete acceptance of modern scientific conclusions about the universe.

And key to their interpretation (discussed mostly in the last part) is the old concept of the intelligibility of the universe.

They highlight one quote from Einstein to the effect that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.

This is not a new concept in Christian philosophy. It has long been argued that there is a relationship between the rationality of the human mind, the rationality of the divine mind and the rational order of the universe such that we can trust the universe to be intelligible to human understanding.

I say "philosophy" because it is not strictly speaking Christian doctrine, but it has certainly a long and central place in a Christian understanding of the created world.

It occurred to me as I watched this series that this is a place where YECism most seriously departs from traditional Christian philosophy. In view of its rejection of the most overwhelming evidence of the age of the earth and the universe and the evolution of life on earth, YECism is forced to deny the intelligibility of the universe. It is forced to claim that we cannot possibly use rational means to understand creation, that creation is not law-bound or given an intelligible orderly structure.

Yet it is precisely through affirming intelligibility, accepting science and following rational leads these scientists are moving away from the image of earth and ourselves as cosmic accidents and possibly placed here by and for a purpose.

 

[Willtor]

I liked that series of clips. I thought it got a little preachy at the end, but I was pretty fascinated to hear the cosmological discussion. If they're right and Earth is quantitatively privileged then that's quite surprising to me.

 

[gluadys]

I liked that series of clips. I thought it got a little preachy at the end, but I was pretty fascinated to hear the cosmological discussion. If they're right and Earth is quantitatively privileged then that's quite surprising to me.

The ironic thing to me is that many creationists will jump on these findings as evidence for creation, yet continue to deny the basic principle of the intelligibility of the universe when it comes to things like the age of the earth, the global flood (NOT) and evolution.

You just can't have it both ways. If the findings referred to in this book are strong hints of a spiritual reality that had a purpose in creating the universe and us, then radioisotope dating is accurate, the speed of light has not changed significantly, there cannot have been any such thing as hyper-rapid tectonic movement and dozens of other things that creationists have proposed.

There cannot have been a huge planetary upheaval at the time of the fall or the flood that makes the past too opaque to measure accurately. There cannot have been any major disturbance of uniformitarian geology that permits the possibility of a young earth.

None of those things are possible because God made an intelligible universe and observers with the intelligence to figure it out.

 

[Willtor]

Agreed. The implications from this line of reasoning follow the findings of conventional science and the rise of conventional science. Denying either undermines the line of reasoning.

 

[theQuestionist]

Hmm, despite being a very interesting video...I think some of the conclusions are flawed, or at least...a bit forced.

The improbability of our existence here on earth certainly has no bearing on our existence on earth, no matter the means by which we got here (ie...all the necessary cosmological "values" being in place).

It would be like a person winning a 1-in-1,000,000,000,000 lottery, and saying "the chances of me winning were so slim....that there's no way I simply could have won by chance". That's sort of undermining the fact that the person did win by chance (despite the odds).

Not only that...but when one considers these types of things about the Universe, one must always remember that the Universe is freaking huge. Bigger than we yet even know. One estimate (thanks google) says that there are 10^22 to 10^24 stars in the Universe (based on the idea that there are 10^12 stars in a galaxy, and that there are 10^12 galaxies). So....when looking at a figure like that, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that one tiny spec of a planet would happen to have those 20-or-so important factors (as described in the video) in place, considering that planets are not that uncommon around stars. In fact, even if we assume that only 1 in 1,000,000 stars have planet(s) encircling them ...that's still potentially 10^16 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000--one quintillion) planets floating around the Universe.

So, being an interesting video based on science, one must still admit that its conclusions are certainly not scientific in themselves....they're more or less just proposed to further the presupposed ID philosophies that (those interviewed in the video) clearly assume.

 

[Willtor]

Yeah. This is why I say it got a little preachy at the end. If the science is not misrepresented then it looks indicative of something to me. But it's a philosophical point, not a scientific one, and one ought to distinguish between "science leads me to think this scientific thought" from "science leads me to think this philosophical thought."

 

[theIdi0t]

It's a very interesting 6-part series (about 15 minutes each)

Here's a single 1hr clip of the Privileged Planet, for anyone who doesn't want to click through separate clips, and for those who would prefer to download the video to their ipods and what not.

 

[gluadys]

So, being an interesting video based on science, one must still admit that its conclusions are certainly not scientific in themselves....they're more or less just proposed to further the presupposed ID philosophies that (those interviewed in the video) clearly assume.

I agree. They are certainly interpreting their findings in line with their philosophy, and that doesn't add up in any way to scientific support for the existence of God.

But the way they do it, by linking the intelligibility of an observable universe to the existence of intelligent observers has deep roots in Christian philosophy which YEC has to disown and discredit.

As some have noted this takes YECism into extremes of post-modernism where nothing is knowable.