Being right proves you wrong, part 2.

In a previous post I discussed how creationist can often use arguments that contradict themselves or their own beliefs. Consistency isn't important. They simply accept any argument that seems to go against evolution, no matter how it relates to their other views. Thus they attach themselves to arguments against peppered moth evolution even though they accept microevolution. In fact they depend on microevolution, so they can fall back on "yes, but that bacteria didn't evolve into a human".

Another inconsistency is when creationists, especially YECs, fall back on fine tuning arguments. A fine tuning argument (or the anthropic principle), says that if the physical constants of the universe were even slightly different, there would be no life. If we were to change the strength of gravity, or of the strong or weak nuclear forces, etc., then life could not exist, so the universe must be designed. I actually don't have any problem with fine tuning arguments, even if I find them less than convincing as an argument for God. Acceptance of a fine tuning argument doesn't necessarily involve the rejection of any of modern science, it simply involves saying there is a reason for the way things are. Accepting ID, on the other hand, involves actively rejecting most of biology.

Fine tuning arguments are inoffensive because they assume science has it all right. We know how the universe formed, how stars formed, how carbon and oxygen formed, how life formed--by natural processes. An example of a fine tuning argument is that if gravity were just a little stronger, the universe would collapse on itself or have too many black holes, and if it were weaker, no stars would have formed. If you change the strength of the nuclear forces the early universe would have been all helium instead of hydrogen and star formation and the formation of other elements wouldn't have formed.

In other words, in order for the fine tuning argument to work, you have to assume the big bang is true, stars evolve as astronomers tell us, the universe is billions of years old, the stuff of life formed in the interior of stars so the earth was seeded with simple carbon based molecules which then could form life by natural processes. That doesn't sound like something an evolution denier would support, especially a YEC. If it was all created by God, he could have just put created the sun and put the carbon on earth from scratch, in any universe. Yet you will find them using the argument, because they do not try to make a coherent whole but just find the parts that support their view, kind of liking searching the Bible for a verse to prop up their position.