“Nobody can really object to the "weak anthropic principle." It just says that the laws and conditions of the universe must be consistent with life; otherwise, we wouldn't be here.”

The conditions of the universe are really not so consistent with life as we know it. The earth, which is ostensively the only satellite we know of that harbors life (in our corner of the universe anyway)—is infinitesimally small in comparison to the universe as a whole. It goes without saying that if you were to take a human, or a platypus, or any other life form for that matter and place them anywhere in the universe outside of our tiny protected bubble of earth’s atmosphere that they would would fall prey to a variety of negative elements and conditions; all of which translate to a quick and messy death.

Those that use the so called ‘anthropic principle’ (whether it be of the weak or strong stripe) to argue for an intelligent designer are really using what I like to jokingly call the ‘anthrpocentric principle’. This worldview basically sees a universe light years across and with hundreds of billions of suns, planets and other celestial debris as the proprietary testing ground for a human like deity and a few billion of his fleshy charges. It seems to me the anthropic principal lacks both humility and perspective.

Until a few years ago most of us had a pretty limited idea of what life was and under what conditions it could flourish. Recent explorations around boiling hot volcanic vents in the pitch black, oxygen deprived depths of the ocean have taught us a thing or two about just how weird living conditions for complex organisms can get.

I think it is a fundamentally weak argument to say the universe is geared for life when in fact all evidence points to the contrary; life is geared to the universe and adapted to whatever conditions the cosmos threw at it. To think that the human form was somehow “what was meant to be” seems to me to be the height of hubris. Any musing that “we are meant to be here” may be comforting but it is most likely a comforting fiction and a poor cover for either a lack of imagination or an inability to appreciate the beauty of chance.

You said: "The question is: if the universe was totally different, with entirely different physical laws, would something else be "meant to be here" and the answer is certainly: yes."

I have to side with Dracowrym and say that 'meant' is misleading. You are correct in saying something else would be here but 'meant' gives 'meaning' and therefore intent to what is a purely causal relationship.

SSabaM said: “Every scientific explanation I've seen about how we got here seems as unfinished as "God created us”. My understanding comes through means other than reasoning or science--seeking to understand morality and spirituality is how I can make sense of the big questions for myself, of course these are outside science.”

I don’t think they are SsabaM. The statement that God exists and created the universe is a scientific assertion and needs to be able to stand up to the scientific method if it’s to be taken seriously. I’m also afraid that with the overwhelming absence of evidence that the burden of proof is on the believer; not the non-theist.

As for questions that lay outside of science I have yet to see a valid one. Stephen J. Gould’s famous ‘non-overlapping magesteria’ is an awful canard and I seriously doubt that he even believed it himself.

As for Scientific explanations being 'unfinished'; you're right, they are. But even in their unfinished state they offer us infinitely more than any dogma or theology has or ever could hope to supply.

One of my hobbies is letting Debra Dickerson know on a monthly basis that I think her writing sucks. However, never let it be said that I don't give credit where credit is due- This month she's right on!

I hope this is the start of a trend away from her regular bloviations into more thoughtful and saner territory.

Wow! Seven pages of Camille answering the geopolitical challenged with her special brand of intellectually constipated woohoo.

Joan, if I send you every bad letter I’ve ever written to a wing-nut will you publish them for me? Also, do you pay by the word because I got a lot of them.

A: They both stick tenaciously to their personal loyalties despite their constituent’s (or subscriber's ) condemnations.

Paglia is the Alberto Gonzales of this site. Joan, I respectfully think that makes you…Hmm?

Next time you let Camille just dump her inbox onto your sight could you give her a word limit?

I ask because its kinda fun to watch her disassemble every month into her nested loop of tired themes (like which has-been actress she’s twiterpating over this week, the dazzling genius of Rush Limbaugh, etc.) but it’s just too damn long when you give her eight pages!

I’m not asking you to give her the axe, just limit her to three or four paragraphs so we can get a chuckle in before moving on to serious writers like Greenwald and Kamiya.

Thirty four letters to the editor so far:

33- virulently loathe Paglia (the majority being subscribers)

1- saying they disagree with her but find her style more engaging this time around.

0- positive letters

Does that tell the editors anything? How much longer are you going to hold your readers in contempt?