Home | Blog | About | Videos | Contact
Introduction
& Prolog
Part 1.
Metabolic Metaphysics
Part 2.
Star Larvae
Part 3.
Space Brains
Addenda
Epilog

The Star Larvae HypothesisAstrotheology and Hinduism
Nature's Plan for Humankind
Part 2. Star Larvae

Anthropic Coincidence

The laws of nature in this universe are attuned precisely to the needs of biological organisms.




 

The star larvae hypothesis repositions phylogeny, or evolution, to a status subordinate to a superordinate ontogeny, which is the stellar life cycle. In doing so, it recasts evolution as a teleological process, an unfolding of already-present potentials. Repositioning evolution in this way narrows the gap between the scientific and religious views of nature. It demotes contingency to a merely supporting role in natural history.

The religious view interprets the interdependent and improbably complex structures and processes of nature as evidence of an intelligence operating behind the scenes. This is the Argument from Design. In the context of developing Creationist curricula for public schools, it has come to be called the doctrine of "intelligent design," (formerly, "Creation science;" formerly "Creationism") This view of nature appeals to the powers of human observation, as does the scientific view, but it arrives at radically different conclusions.

"I could cite many further instances of this assiduous and sophisticated provision of nature, to make clear the extent of these outstanding gifts of the gods to mankind. To begin with, she has raised men from the earth and made them stand tall and erect, so that by gazing on the sky they could acquire knowledge of the gods. Human beings are sprung from the earth not as natives and dwellers there, but to survey the heavenly realm above, an insight granted to no other species of living creatures."

— Cicero
The Nature of the Gods

The Design argument asks the skeptic to look, for example, at the eye and its ability to receive light and transfer images to the receptive centers of the brain, its ability to focus near and far, its ability to dilate and constrict its pupil to accommodate dim and bright light, its transparency to light, and so on. Clearly—so runs the argument—such a complex, perfectly tuned mechanism could not have come into being other than by the skilled hand of a cosmic creator.

Science, on the other hand, dismisses any apparent design as being merely apparent. The appearance of design is the result of natural processes acting over millennia, eons even. The eye, for example, did not appear full-blown overnight. It evolved over hundreds of millions of years, from the light-sensitive eyespots of flatworms through countless intermediate refinements to specimens, such as the eyes of raptors, that exceed in their powers of resolution even the keenest human eyes. But continuous refinement is just nature allowing organisms to reach reproductive age. Time takes care of the rest, through phenotypical variation and natural selection, according to the scientific view.

Reconciling these perspectives is a philosophical challenge issued anew in recent years by the development within science of an idea called the Anthropic Principle. (For a thoroughgoing treatment, see John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle). This idea springs from an observation about the universe's fundamental physical constants, which include the strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity, the mass of the electron, and the speed of light. These constants, which are not derivable from other physical quantities, are—so far as science can determine—given in the structure of the universe; they are intrinsic properties. The interesting observation about these quantities is that they happen to lie within a narrow range of values within which they must lie to enable a universe such as ours to exist in the first place. A slight change in any of these fundamental quantities would likely render the universe far less interesting—far less able to produce atoms and molecules, stars and planets, galaxies and that highly contingent entity, the biological organism. The universe seems to have been "tuned" for the sake of life. The parameters are ultra-precise. Newly emboldened critics of science have grabbed this ball and tried to score points by arguing that the odds against so many coincidences—the alignment of constants that makes us possible—renders implausible any alternative to intelligent design.

The scientific corner offers a rebuttal, namely that humankind should not be surprised to find itself in a universe in which it is allowed to exist. If humankind’s existence were precluded in the first place by inhospitable physics, then no one would be around to make observations at all. In other words, starting from the fact that we can ask questions about our existence, scientists are unimpressed that a "coincidence" of the laws of nature allows us to do so. It is a necessary given, given the fact that humans exist.

Nonetheless, questions remain: Why do the fundamental constants have precisely the values that they have? Why isn't the universe an indistinct lump or a diffuse fog, devoid of interesting features? Does some kind of necessity force the laws of nature to be what they are?

With the Anthropic Principle as a backdrop, the Design argument can be stepped back from the realm of biology, and the Evolution-Design debate to more fundamental aspects of nature. The Design argument gains a leg up on Darwinism when it forces us to look past the organic phenomena that science explains with evolution to more fundamental physics. For example, when science cites natural selection to explain the eye, it begs the question as to why the molecules that compose the eye are able to have precisely the physical properties that enable them to interact chemically as they do to make up specialized cells that have properties that make possible complex structures, such as the retina, cornea, lens, etc., with their precise physical characteristics. And the same question is begged regarding the atoms that compose the molecules.

No one argues that carbon atoms, for example, evolved from ancestral atoms and that their evolution favored those ancestral forms with properties more conducive to successful reproduction. Carbon atoms possess the nuclear and chemical properties that they do, because they just do. That is what it means to be a carbon atom.

Atoms don’t reproduce through successive generations, and so the application of natural selection to explain the properties of atoms is absurd from the outset.

Or?

Could selection pressures influence the properties of atoms through the turnover of stellar generations (stars being the bodies that metabolize nuclear particles into atoms)?

More provocatively, might atoms be pre-programmed to assemble themselves into this particular universe in any way analogous to that in which acorns are preprogrammed to assemble atoms and molecules into oak trees? The Anthropic Principle invites science to expand the concepts of ontogeny and phylogeny and gather physical processes of all kinds under the Principle’s teleological umbrella. A possible repositioning of natural processes in this context—putting everything into a Darwinian context—would undercut the Argument from Design's supernatural foundation. Science gets a leg up on Creationism when it proposes that universes themselves evolve and that the physical constants have been tuned, not by God, but by cosmological natural selection.

NEXT > Cosmological Natural Selection

 


The Star Larvae Hypothesis:

Stars constitute a genus of organism. The stellar life cycle includes a larval phase. Biological life constitutes the larval phase of the stellar life cycle.

Elaboration: The hypothesis presents a teleological model of nature, in which

 

Social Media =
Social Mediocrity:


rue
or

alse?

Bookmark and Share


Home | Blog | About | Videos | Contact | Text Copyright 2004-2014 Advanced Theological Systems. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Statement: We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, visit the Google ad and content network privacy policy.