No komentāriem:

I don't understand why Bob [Robert Wright] brings up arguments that are scientifically wrong. I have posted the following before but I will do so again:

1. Natural selection does not have a direction, it is not likely to produce intelligence, even increased complexity is not guaranteed (emphasis added):
While the evolutionary history of myxozoans is still an active area of research, it is now understood that myxozoans are highly derived Cnidarians that have undergone dramatic evolution from a free swimming, self-sufficient jellyfish-like creature into their current form of obligate parasites composed of a mere handful of cells. As myxozoans evolved into microscopic parasites, they lost many genes responsible for multicellular development, coordination, and cell-cell communication. The genomes of some myxozoans are now among the smallest genomes of any known animal species.

2. The argument against the anthropic principle is very simple: the premise does not hold. Our understanding of the world relies on thirty or so fundamental constants that are not determined by theory, we know them by measurement. Anyone advocating for the anthropic principle has to show that any change in these constants would result in a world without life. For example they would have to show a 0.01% decrease in the gravitational constant (in other words gravity being a weaker force) would mean absence of life. Not only that, they should rule out more exotic combinations in which many or even all these constant differ from the values of our universe. In other words, the anthropic principle is an extraordinarily strong claim but it is usually presented with little to no supporting evidence.