Biology Fine tuning Intelligent Design

Discussion of fine-tuning at Journal of Theoretical Biology

It would be nice to continue a civilized discussion of what fine-tuning means and implies in biology. Would incorporating an expectation of fine-tuning into biology hypotheses lead to quicker advances sooner? How will we test this—assuming that the village Darwin mob doesn’t storm the place, demanding that we shut down the discussion?

Fine tuning Intelligent Design

Luke Barnes, Q & A on fine-tuning of the universe

It’s not clear that massive evidence for fine-tuning of the universe makes much difference to most naturalists because it just increases their certainty that the zero-evidence multiverse must be out there. But the rest of us will learn something. Come to think of it, panpsychists might adopt fine-tuning as an argument for an intelligent universe. We shall see.

Cosmology Fine tuning Naturalism Physics

At New Scientist: There’s a basic fact about the universe that we “still don’t understand”

Here’s a question: What if the basic fact we “still don’t understand” is that the evidence shows that the universe is fine-tuned and that therefore, fine-tuning is not an illusion that needs explaining away? Would that simplify things? If so, how? Another question (now that we’re here anyway): How much publicly funded cosmology exists simply to promote a naturalist atheist (no fine-tuning) worldview? And what is the science rationale for that?

Cosmology Fine tuning Intelligent Design Physics

Rob Sheldon on why string theory’s inflationary cosmos is a degenerate research program

Sheldon: The inflationary proposal has always been ad hoc. That is, a huge, faster-than-light expansion of the universe was proposed as a solution to the “flatness” problem, where the universe expands at a rate just sufficient to counter the gravitational attraction, where “just sufficient” means one part in 10^60 power. The inflationary model was invented to solve this fine-tuning problem.