multicoloured-dice-background-91595358-stockpack-adobestock
Multicoloured dice background
Image Credit: Kevin Booth - Adobe Stock
ID the Future Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Science Podcast
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Inscrutable Dice and Bean Jars: Answering Objections to Fine-Tuning

Episode
2267
With
Andrew McDiarmid
Guest(s)
Bruce Gordon
Duration
00:36:54
Download
Audio File (84.4 mb)
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

You’re likely familiar with the evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe, and you may be aware that there are several cosmological models attempting to explain away that fine-tuning, including the popular multiverse hypothesis. But did you know an ID scientist has developed a scientifically rigorous method for scoring those models? On this ID The Future, host Andrew McDiarmid begins a two-part conversation with philosopher of physics Bruce Gordon and physicist Brian Miller about Gordon’s scoring system and how it evaluates the many models on offer that might explain the origin and development of the universe.

In Part 1, Gordon and Miller first share their thoughts on the recent debate between science communicator Phil Halper and philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer about which cosmological model of the universe best explains the evidence. As Miller explains, the debate was important because it brought more light than heat to the debate over cosmological origins.

Next, Gordon responds to some common objections to the fine-tuning evidence. He argues that fine-tuning strongly favors theism because it predicts a life-permitting order in advance, while naturalism only retrofits explanations after the fact. He responds to Phil Halper’s inscrutable dice objection, which claims probabilities cannot be defined over an infinite range. Gordon points out that physics supplies a bounded, finite parameter space in which the life-permitting window is extremely small. Then he addresses philosopher of science Christopher Hitchcock’s bean jar sorting analogy. Because fundamental constants sit at the very bottom of physical reality, says Gordon, no deeper physical mechanism exists to sort them. So cosmological models that rely on physical necessity or brute facts end up undermining science as they fail to adequately explain the available evidence.

This sets the stage for Part 2 of the discussion, where Gordon will give us a few specific examples of how his evaluative method scores the many cosmological models that have been put forth to explain the universe. How do naturalistic theories stack up to a theory of intelligent design? Find out next!

This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation.

Dig Deeper

  • Take a visual deep dive into the best explanation for the origin of the universe in the recent documentary film The Story of Everything, now streaming on Amazon Prime and available on blu-ray/DVD!