Anthropic Reasoning and the Illusion of Intelligent Design

by Max Andrews

I’m currently doing research for my graduate thesis on the fine-tuning of the multiverse and I was reading an essay by Alan Guth titled “Eternal Inflation and Its Implications.”  I’m not a physicist nor do I have much formal training in the sciences.  Most of what I know is self-learned (and that’s not saying too much).  I waded through Guth’s equations and arrived at what implications Guth found in inflationary cosmology.  This is more my field–applying theory and interpreting the data.  What I found interesting.

I admire Guth for his attempt to not invoke unnecessary explanatory entities or hypotheses; however, at what point and extent in theory does an explanation become unnecessary or even illusory?  He states, “Anthropic reasoning can give the illusion of intelligent design without the need for intelligent intervention.” This anthropic reasoning asks the question, “Why is it the case that we find the parameters for life so finely-tuned?”  Guth takes the physical sciences as far as they are able to go in an attempt to give an account for the fine-tuning of the universe, an attempt he believes the multiverse is able to sufficiently account for without intelligent design.  Sure, that’s fine with me, it’s still a question of theory.  At what point does the best explanation become the best explanation?  It appears that the best explanation is intelligent design but according to Guth (and Leonard Susskind, whom Guth cites) this is actually an illusion.  What is the criteria for labeling one explanation as illusory when the methodology (even methodological naturalism) is the same?  There is certainly more to be said but the philosophy behind this is eschew.


One Comment to “Anthropic Reasoning and the Illusion of Intelligent Design”

  1. It’s interesting how there are many who claim to adhere to scientific methodology and empirical observation, yet these same people simply try to hand waive away these empirical observations as illusory when it doesn’t conform to their world views. Dawkins is also guilty of this when even he admits that there is an overwhelming appearance of design in biology, but that it is merely illusory. Getting back to Guth and multiverse. Again, we can empirically quantify the exponential amount of ratios and parameters that needs to be in place in order for our universe to exist, or what some refer to as nothing more than cosmic coincidences, and not only for life, but in many cases, for matter itself.

    Rodger Penrose also agrees that the universe is fine tuned and has calculated the odds of our universe coming into existence on its own at, 1:10^10(123) in contrast there are only 1:10^80 electrons in the universe. This same Noble Laureate also says that Mverse is not even a theory but more of a thought. “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life” Paul Davies. Maybe things look finely tuned and intelligently designed because the are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: