Fine-Tuning, Therefore Oogity Boogity

This one at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog will absolutely persuade you to abandon your sinful Darwinism. The title of the Discoveroids’ post is Life: Fearfully and Wonderfully Fine-Tuned, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A new ID the Future episode [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!] spotlights the incredible fine-tuning of life.

What the flaming *BLEEP* is the fine-tuning of life? Yes, we live on this planet, but that doesn’t mean that some deity tweaked us so that we could live here; nor does it mean that the deity tweaked the Earth so it would accommodate us. We evolved to live here. Those organisms that couldn’t survive didn’t pass their inadequate characteristics to the next generation. This isn’t complicated, folks! Ah well, let’s continue with the Discoveroid post. They say:

Robert J. Marks hosts Stockholm University professor of mathematical statistics Ola Hössjer and University of Miami population geneticist Daniel Díaz. The three discuss strategies for extending the concept of fine-tuning to biological systems [Great idea!], and along the way touch on population genetics, entropy, and probability theory.

It sounds like an absolutely thrilling conversation. After that the Discoveroids tell us:

Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Yeah, sure. Link omitted!]

The Discoveroid post continues:

At the center of the discussion are three technical papers — here, here, and here [All three links omitted!] — each co-authored by one or more of the three members of the podcast discussion.

Isn’t this fun? Let’s read on:

This episode is reposted from Mind Matters News, a website of Discovery Institute’s Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.

Wowie — the Discoveroids are re-posting their own stuff! Hey — we’ve arrived at the end of their post. Here’s the last of it:

Head over to their podcast page [Link omitted!] to find the other episodes in this interview series.

Would ya believe it, that’s all there is to their post. It wasn’t very long, but you gotta admit, the thing was jam-packed with important information. There’s no doubt about it — Darwinism is doomed!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

13 responses to “Fine-Tuning, Therefore Oogity Boogity

  1. Which is more impressive. Life that exists where life is possible, or life that exists where life is not possible? What does a god need with fine tuning.

  2. @richard
    Yes!
    And then there is what fine tuning tells us about the age of life on Earth. If the speed of light, or radioactive decay rates, were any different, then that would mean that nature was not fine-tuned for life.

  3. Life is fine-tuned for its environment? You might almost think that it evolved to fit it. What an incredible new idea! /s

  4. It is a slippery slope, to bring in a bit of natural mechanism for the history of life.
    Life is a natural phenomenon, and that is seen how it fits naturally with the parameters of the laws of nature. That is seen how it has existed for many millions, if not billions of years. And how all life is based on one pattern, the tree of life, rather than many thousands or millions of distinct kinds.
    Once one brings up the idea of the fit of life to nature, it’s a slippery slope.

  5. I have been thinking about what global characteristics one can certainly point to. I am no scientist or other professional, so I do.not have high expectations for this. But if anyone thinks that this is worth responding to, including the old “it’s not even wrong” …
    First of all, I decided that there are no fixed goals. For example, in life, there is no stage of life which can be pointed to. All living things are in a never-ending, never-beginning process of birth, maturation, reproduction, and death.
    This leads me to consider that what is characteristic of the universe is change. And to put a fancy tag on it, the one end, or final cause, is the increase of entropy. So, if one is going to argue from the final cause, that – increase of entropy – is the one goal of the creator.

  6. So we happen to live on the surface of a planet on which life could evolve. What a surprise.

  7. For some reason unknown to me WordPress forgot who I am, so I’m Anonymous above.

  8. @abeastwood
    One can make sweeping generalizations of that. Every living thing exists in an environment which is naturally compatible with its physical body, and acts according to the laws of nature.
    No one is considering that their is, or has been, life which is contrary to that principle, at any place or any time.

  9. Retired Prof

    Hambo is fond of repeating that you have to start out with the right worldview to come up with the right conclusion. The right conclusion is identical to his starting point: human life is the planned end point of all creation. In other words, to finish with the right conclusion you have to start with it.

    Besides its startling circularity, this argument makes no sense when you recall that God is supposed to be the master engineer behind what we now see as an incredibly vast, mostly uninhabitable universe. Ham maintains its whole purpose is to offer little old us a home and astonish us with wonders that inspire us to glorify him.

    What a failure of engineering principles! To accomplish a goal, an engineer should design a process with no wasted motion, using a mechanism with no superfluous parts. God could have built a thoroughly adequate setting for staging the human drama with the kind of structure described in ancient times: a flat landscape with a revolving globe overhead to hold the stars and planets, the sun and the moon–in fact all the heavenly phenomena required to make every conscious creature here below go “ooh” and “aah.” He could have stopped right there. But no. Everything further he did is all a colossal waste if we accept Ham’s idea about why he did it.

    Hambo must recognize this principle, since he rails against the idea of “billions of years.” Every one of those years (except the most recent six thousand) call attention to the utter absurdity of his worldview.

  10. What a failure of engineering principles! To accomplish a goal, an engineer should design a process with no wasted motion, using a mechanism with no superfluous parts.

    A good engineer would get it done and not moo over the waters like a cow and then take six days. He got the day off part right though.

  11. @Retired Prof: I agree. That’s one of the best summaries of why Hambo and other creationists are talking complete nonsense.

  12. One is reminded of the story told of King Alfonso of Castile, when he was learning the Ptolemaic model of the motions of the heavens. Alfonso supposedly said that if he had been asked at creation, he could think of some advice to offer.

  13. The first known instance of prophecy in the Bible occurred in the second verse of Genesis, “And the Spirit of God mooed upon the face of the waters.” Cows had not been invented yet.