Adventures in Mormonism

Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming

The Onion strikes again. ..bruce..

Via Slashdot comes this report of a study — from (ta-da!) Brigham Young University — that shows that ethical behavior increases in the presence of ‘clean smells’:

People are unconsciously fairer and more generous when they are in clean-smelling environments, according to a soon-to-be published study led by a Brigham Young University professor.

The research found a dramatic improvement in ethical behavior with just a few spritzes of citrus-scented Windex.

Katie Liljenquist, assistant professor of organizational leadership at BYU’s Marriott School of Management, is the lead author on the piece in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science. Co-authors are Chen-Bo Zhong of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management and Adam Galinsky of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.

The researchers see implications for workplaces, retail stores and other organizations that have relied on traditional surveillance and security measures to enforce rules.

“Companies often employ heavy-handed interventions to regulate conduct, but they can be costly or oppressive,” said Liljenquist, whose office smells quite average. “This is a very simple, unobtrusive way to promote ethical behavior.”

Perhaps the findings could be applied at home, too, Liljenquist said with a smile. “Could be that getting our kids to clean up their rooms might help them clean up their acts, too.”

My wife will be gratified to know — far too late, since our kids are (mostly) gone — that she was right about the need for them to keep their rooms smelling fresh.  ..bruce..

God is speaking to us in a consistent voice. God will deal with all the human family equally. We might be in a large ward or a small branch, our climate or vegetation may differ, the cultural background and language might vary, and the color of our skin could be totally different. But the universal power and blessings of the restored gospel are available to all, irrespective of culture, nationality, political system, tradition, language, economic environment, or education.

– Pres. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, 2nd Counselor, First Presidency, July 2008 Ensign

Or, one might add, to those living on a different planet altogether.

In part 1 of this series, I noted that the LDS concept of myriad inhabited worlds within this universe dates back to 1830, the same year the LDS Church itself was founded. In other worlds, LDS doctrine has from the start had a very expansive, non-geocentric view of reality. This is a doctrine in which “were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still…” (Moses 7:30), and in which “by [Christ], and through [Christ], and of [Christ], the worlds are and were created, the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.” (D&C 76:24).

But what will those sons and daughters look like?

Consider the diversity of human forms (usually lumped under the unfortunate term “race“) known to exist in historic times just here on Earth.  The MButi people of Africa average around 4.5″ in height, while the Watusi (since merged into the Tutsi) average — or used to average — around 6.5″ in height; furthermore, there are anthropological evidences (albeit controversial) of yet taller and shorter population groups. There are wide variations in skin color, eye color, and hair color and type, as well as in the shape of the human skull, facial characteristics, and many other genetically-linked or -influenced traits. We then have to add in the influences of environment, including evidences of rapid evolution and growing genetic diversity among modern humans.

And that’s just here on Eath.

We in the LDS Church have historically been strongly influenced by our British/European roots in our view of the physical nature of God and Christ. But what if the Gospel had been restored (for argument’s sake and ignoring the socio-politcal difficulties) in Africa, China, or India, or among indigenous peoples in Australia, South America, or North America? How would we view God and Christ then? It’s an old argument, I know, but valid nonetheless.

Now, let’s extend the above to countless worlds spread across this universe, inhabited by “begotten sons and daughters unto God” who have lived and been shaped by countless different ecologies and environments, and who will need to be genetically and physically compatible with those worlds. What physiological traits of those humans might emerge and dominate on a given world vs. what traits would be common across all worlds?

The common traits would likely correspond to those common among humans here on Earth:  upright, bilateral symmetry, two arms, two legs, front-facing head with basic facial organization, two genders [yeah, yeah, go argue elsewhere], and so on. I suspect we’d recognize them as human — but, again, that covers an awful lot of ground right here on Earth.

There could be signficant differences as well. As a simple example, consider this listing of “7 people from around the world with real mutant superpowers” (warning: profanity; also, ignore the guy with the flying jet pack). Again, these are all people here on Earth; the human body, as we know it, is capable of things that we don’t fully understand, and such characteristics — rare here on Earth — could be selected as a survival trait on another world. Other rare characteristics, considered here as birth defects — such as extra digits or webbing between fingers and toes — could again be normal and common elsewhere.

There could likewise be variations in the characteristics listed above — height, eye color, hair color/style, skin color, skull and facial characteristics, overall body shape, and so on — that don’t appear here on Earth.  Nothing inherently prohibits blue hair, red eyes, or green skin; while they’re not in the human genome here on Earth (as far as I know), they could well exist in the human genetic code on other worlds.

The planet itself could shape or require a changed physiology. Consider factors such as gravity, air pressure, O2 content, solar radiation, humidity, land mass vs. water surface, dissolved minerals in water, climate (with the resulting weather patterns), and the fundamental chemistry of plants and animals, that is, food sources. This could change existing physiology — consider the claimed physiological adaptations of population groups that have lived for many generations at high altitudes — or there could be completely new physical characteristics that don’t correspond to any human characteristics here. As a simple example of the latter, imagine infrared sensors on one’s cheeks or neck, analogous to those found on pit vipers; this could be useful on a world surrounding a small red sun (the single most common type of star out there).

At this point, the image that comes to mind is (wince) “Star Trek: The Original Series”, with its variety of very-human-looking aliens, usually having only cosmetic external differences among them, though often claiming significant internal and sensory differences. Of course, “Star Trek” did this because it was cheaper and easier to slap some makeup and prosthetic foreheads on real humans than to try to create a truly non-human alien (though they actually made a few decent stabs at that as well).

In sum, I don’t think we can presume that the “begotten sons and daughters unto God” on these billions (or more) of other worlds would necessarily blend in while wandering around the BYU campus. But they would be our brothers and sisters, nevertheless. In that, we and the Vatican would agree — but we would mean it a bit more literally. ..bruce..

Also intelligent (if primitive) bipedal beavers and “man-bats”.

No, really.

Here’s a great write-up of the “Great Moon Hoax” perpetrated by the New York Sun back in 1835. In short, the Sun published a story that claimed that Sir John Herschel — a very real and prominent astronomer — had observed life on the moon:

The article continued on and offered an elaborate account of the fantastic sights viewed by Herschel during his telescopic observation of the moon. It described a lunar topography that included vast forests, inland seas, and lilac-hued quartz pyramids. Readers learned that herds of bison wandered across the plains of the moon; that blue unicorns perched on its hilltops; and that spherical, amphibious creatures rolled across its beaches. The highpoint of the narrative came when it revealed that Herschel had found evidence of intelligent life on the moon: he had discovered both a primitive tribe of hut-dwelling, fire-wielding biped beavers, and a race of winged humans living in pastoral harmony around a mysterious, golden-roofed temple. Herschel dubbed these latter creatures the Vespertilio-homo, or “man-bat”.

What’s interesting in the post is the account of how the Sun‘s article was received at Yale:

Yale College was alive with staunch supporters. The literati—students and professors, doctors in divinity and law—and all the rest of the reading community, looked daily for the arrival of the New York mail with unexampled avidity and implicit faith. Have you seen the accounts of Sir John Herschel’s wonderful discoveries? Have you read the Sun? Have you heard the news of the man in the Moon? These were the questions that met you every where. It was the absorbing topic of the day. Nobody expressed or entertained a doubt as to the truth of the story.

I bring this up because of the regular resurfacing of the claim — based on a 2nd party account in the Young Women’s Journal some 40 years after the fact — that Joseph Smith said “as early as 1837″ that there were men on the moon, dressed “like Quakers”.  He may well have said that, but if he did, he likely was reacting to the Sun‘s article, especially given the cited timeframe. Beyond that, his claim — conservatively dressed humans — is a bit more sober and feasible than “blue unicorns”, “bipedal beavers” and “man-bats”.

Something to keep in mind the next time the issues is raised.  ..bruce..

P. S. And, no, this still isn’t Part 2 on LDS exobiology.

Indeed, many observers assert that aliens would be bad for believers. Jill Tarter, director of the Center for SETI Research, once wrote that finding intelligent other-worldly life “will be inconsistent with the existence of God or at least organized religions.”

That quote is from the Wired article, “Christian Theologians Prepare for Extraterrestrial Life” by Brandon Keim (dated 6/13/08). The article itself is in response to an interview with “Vatican chief astronomer and papal science adviser” Gabriel Funes on extraterrestrials and religion (see “The Extraterrestrial is My Brother“). Here’s part of the interview:

LOR: And [the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligent life] would not be a problem for our faith?

FUNES: I believe no. As a multiplicity of creatures exist on earth, so there could be other beings, also intelligent, created by God. This does not contrast with our faith because we cannot put limits on the creative freedom of God. To say it with Saint Francis, if we consider earthly creatures as “brother” and “sister,” why cannot we also speak of an “extraterrestrial brother?” It would therefore be a part of creation.

Of course, from a Latter-day Saint point of view, this is old news. LDS theology and scriptures from the start took a vast, expansive, and non-geocentric view of the universe, including its population. Joseph Smith’s inspired revision of Genesis — in particular, Moses 1, which is a preface to the Old Testament version of Genesis 1 — makes this clear from the start. Here are some selected quotes from Moses 1 (given by Smith in June 1830, just 3 months after the Church was formally organized):

[God speaking to Moses:] And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth. . . .

. . . and [Moses] said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I had never supposed. . . .

. . . And the Lord God said unto Moses For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. And by the word of my power, have I created them; which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. . . .

. . . But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but there are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. (Moses 1:4-5, 10, 31-33, 35, 37-38)

So by mid-1830, LDS doctrine — as given by what was (and is) considered restored ancient scripture — declared the vast size of the universe and that the Earth was just one among an uncounted number of worlds, with a strong suggestion that these other worlds were and are inhabited as well.

This doctrine was re-emphasized just six months later (December 1830) in the ongoing scriptural expansion of Genesis when writings attributed to Enoch were given. Enoch has a vision where he ascends into heaven and sees the wickedness of all the earth:

And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as rain upon the mountains?

And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is that thou canst weep, seeing thou are holy, and from all eternity to all eternity? And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there . . . how is it thou canst weep? . . .

[God replies:] Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also. Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren. (Moses 7:28-31, 35-36)

That last verse makes it clear that not only has God made worlds without number, but that many of them are inhabited. And the nature of such inhabitants is made even clearer a year later, in a revelation to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon given on February 16, 1832 (and recorded as section 76 of the Doctrine & Covenants):

. . . and we heard the voice bearing record that [Jesus Christ] is the Only Begotten of the Father — that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 76:23-24)

So we see that by early 1832 — nearly 180 years ago and almost a century before Edwin Hubble proved that galaxies other than ours existed — LDS scriptures and revelations explicitly and repeatedly stated the existence of incomprehensible numbers of extraterrestrial worlds, at least some number of which, like the Earth, are inhabited by “begotten sons and daughters unto God.”

Next up: do all of those “begotten sons and daughters unto God” on other worlds look just like us? ..bruce..

The Lord knows if I had lost a rib for each wife I have, I should have had none left long ago.

– Brigham Young

A very funny quote from an excellent post by Jared over at LDS Science Review. Go read the whole thing.  ..bruce..

Meridian Magazine has an excellent set of quotes dating back to the 1920s — including from Church publications and General Authorities speaking in General Conference — cautioning members (e.g.)

against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions, and that their languages and dialects, their social organizations, religious conceptions and practices, traditions, etc., are all traceable to those Hebrew sources. [from a Book of Mormon study guide, 1927]

These quotes, in turn, are taken from the FAIR Wiki article on the same topic (which, unlike the Meridian article, has detailed citations).

This issue remains important, because I still see a few commenters in the Bloggernacle claiming that the limited geographical model of the Book of Mormon, as well as the recognition that not all Native Americans descend from Lehites and Jaredites, are “late” (i.e., recent) responses to mainstream archeological and genetic (DNA) research of the past few decades.  That’s just not true. Limited geographical models started before 1920, with Willard Young (son of Brigham Young) proposing a Mesoamerica-only geography of the Book of Mormon, complete with the Hill Cumorah in Guatemala) sometime before 1920, while Louis Edward Hills (of the RLDS Church) proposed a Central Amercia/Mexico-only model (with Cumorah in central Mexico) in 1917.

Likewise, the Meridian article and the FAIR Wiki article from which it draws make it clear that Church materials and leaders were anything but unanimous in claiming Native Americans all descended from Book of Mormon peoples. I’ve previously cited from Hugh Nibley’s writings in the Improvement Era (the Church’s official magazine and precursor to the Ensign) back in the early 1950s, but these new quotes go back a generation earlier. ..bruce..

The best way to build a large, complex system that works is to evolve it from a small, simple system that works.
– Information technology maxim (cf. Gall’s Law)

The most complex and difficult intellectual work performed by humans to date is the design, development, testing and deployment of large-scale information technology (IT) systems. Such systems can have literally astronomical numbers of discrete internal states, changing through hundreds, thousands, or even millions of such states per second. As such, many such development efforts end in failure [PDF], and the ones that do get deployed always have defects, sometimes very large numbers of defects (think Windows Vista). I know, because this is what I deal with on a professional basis — both helping to rescue large troubled IT projects and acting as an expert witness in lawsuits that involve failed or disputed IT projects. And prior to that, I helped to develop and architect large, complex IT systems.

As such, I have no problem with the concept that God would use various evolutionary mechanisms (including, yes, natural selection, geological time-scales, and random mutations) in preparing a world for us to live in. For me, such as approach is more efficient, less difficult, and less error-prone than an ex nihilo creation of the (quite literally, at least for us) incomprehensibly complex biological/ecological/physical environment in which we live. (In fact, one very fascinating area of computer science uses evolutionary concepts for creating more efficient software and hardware.)

I’m not necessarily arguing for a “fire-and-forget” model (where God kick-starts things and then comes back later when the planet is ready), though I don’t rule it out, either; since God has created “worlds without number“, one would suspect He’s got the process pretty much down pat. Still, I think the creation account found in Abraham, which describes “the Gods” as preparing the earth and the seas to bring forth life at certain stages is as good a description as any in which the creation is shepherded towards a desired end, viz., an environment that is biologically, chemically, environmentally, and genetically compatible with the soon-to-be-mortal bodies of Adam and Eve. And, yes, that would include introducing human-compatible DNA (or that which would evolve into it) into the biological mix as early as necessary.

This is, in fact, why I not only have no problems with the varieties of hominid species in the fossil record, up to and including the emergence of Homo sapiens, but I would expect it. Why? Because a world that actually evolved Homo sapiens would be guaranteed to be 100% compatible with the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve. I could also make the argument (dismissed in some quarters, but still valid I believe) that without such an evolutionary track record, the ‘veil’ over our pre-existence memories would be less effective, since it would be so blindingly clear that we had come from somewhere else. (SF author J. P. Hogan explored this concept a bit — on behalf of an alien race — in his “Giants” series of novels.)

Now, this raises the issue of the “pre-Adamites” that B. H. Roberts and others explored during the first few decades of the 20th Century (and that Joseph Fielding Smith, and later Bruce R. McConkie, fought so hard against). For me, it’s not much of an issue. As Hugh Nibley points out (in “Before Adam“, a BYU talk given in 1980), we as Mormons believe in eternal life for a wide range of animal life — why would we deny it to intelligent, evolved hominids, however much they look like us? As Nibley also points out, the “story” — a written history, a record — doesn’t really start until Adam appears on the scene:

Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God’s affection or even a right to exaltation—for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world. They have all gone away long before our people ever appeared. God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine—a full-time job that admonishes me to remember his words to the overly eager Moses: “For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.” (Moses 1:31.) It is Adam as my own parent who concerns me. When he walks onto the stage, then and only then the play begins. He opens a book and starts calling out names. They are the sons of Adam, who also qualify as sons of God, Adam himself being a son of God. This is the book of remembrance from which many have been blotted out. They have fallen away, refused to choose God as their father, and by so doing were registered in Satan’s camp. “Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom.” (Moses 7:37.) Can we call them sons of Adam, bene-Adam, human beings proper? The representative Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans, to name only the classic civilizations of old, each fancied themselves to be beings of a higher nature, nearer to gods than others who inhabited the land with them (and before them), or who dwelt in other lands. And yet they did not deny humanity to them.

Now we get to the issue of Adam and Eve’s bodies themselves — how were they created, what was their ‘pre-fall’ condition, and how did they transition into mortality? Frankly, the simplest explanation for me would be something equivalent to a combination of cloning (from evolved Homo sapiens bodies) and genetic engineering to induce the ‘pre-mortal’ (anti-aging, infertile, intellectually innnocent) state. The ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’ could itself be genetically engineered to provide, if you will, genetic therapy that would transition Adam and Eve to a mortal, fertile, and intellectually enhanced state.

Which brings me to another issue. I’ve just described a hypothetical mechanism for the creation and fall of Adam and Eve using concepts and technology not that far removed from what we can currently achieve as humans. God, on the other hand, is a being Who created, comprehends, and perceived this entire universe and all that’s in it. I think it’s pretty arrogant for any of us humans — wherever we sit in the creation/evolution debate — to state categorically what God could or could not have done in creating this earth and placing us on it. My own posting here is not to state what God must have done, but what He could have done, and in particular why an evolutionary approach would make a lot of sense.

For exampe, intellectual honesty — and my own belief in God’s power — compels me to also admit that God could well have the cosmic equivalent of a Xerox machine (or, for fellow object-oriented development geeks, a Factory pattern) that He can use to stamp out new copies or instances of worlds — with whatever variations He chooses — at will, working from one or more pre-created ‘template’ worlds (that were indeed evolved). Indeed, I think that a lot of our post-mortal education will consist of unlearning many of our cherished personal beliefs and assumptions, accompanied by a lot of forehead-slapping (“I never even thought of that…”).

In sum, I think we in the Church set up for ourselves some unnecessary dichotomies and dilemmas, particularly on issues for which we have relatively little scriptural information — other than the most critical, namely that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” ..bruce..

I had an earlier posting that talked about rethinking the Noachian flood from an LDS perspective, changing the timeframe and location of the Noachian events to North America at the end of the last ice age. In that post, I mentioned growing evidence about a major impact event over the North American ice sheet about 13,000 years ago that may have triggered the Lesser Dryas glaciation, the last ice age event before the current warm period.

Here’s another article that pulls together some of the growing evidence of this impact:

Evidence unearthed at more than two dozen sites across North America suggests that an extraterrestrial object exploded in Earth’s atmosphere above Canada about 12,900 years ago, just as the climate was warming at the end of the last ice age. The explosion sparked immense wildfires, devastated North America’s ecosystems and prehistoric cultures, and triggered a millennium-long cold spell, scientists say.

At sites stretching from California to the Carolinas and as far north as Alberta and Saskatchewan—many of which were home to prehistoric people of the Clovis culture—researchers have long noted an enigmatic layer of carbon-rich sediment that was laid down nearly 13 millennia ago. “Clovis artifacts are never found above this black mat,” says Allen West, a geophysicist with Geoscience Consulting in Dewey, Ariz. The layer, typically a few millimeters thick, lies between older, underlying strata that are chock-full of mammoth bones and younger, fossilfree sediments immediately above, he notes…

Heat from the event would have set off wildfires across the continent, the scientists suggest. The heat and shock from the explosion probably broke up portions of the ice sheet smothering eastern Canada at the time, they add. The flood of fresh water into the North Atlantic that resulted would have interrupted ocean currents that bring warmth to the region, and thick clouds of smoke and soot in the air would have intensified cooling across the Northern Hemisphere.

The inferred date of the event matches the beginning of a 1,200-year-long cold spell that geologists call the Younger Dryas, which in its first few decades saw temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere drop as much as 10°C.

The interesting note (as per the excerpt above) is that the Clovis culture of North America, along with much of the megafauna, appears to have disappeared post-impact. Read the whole article (which includes photographs of the charred layer). ..bruce..

One of the intriguing aspects of reality, as far as we are able to analyze and perceive it to date, is that it depends upon a relatively small set of dimensionless parameters. Here is a listed set, taken from the paper “Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters” by Max Tegmark (MIT), Anthony Aguirre (UCSC), Martin J Rees (Cambridge), and Frank Wilczek (MIT) (Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 023505):

And here are the derived physical parameters:

I got to this paper via an article in New Scientist (subscription required for full article) by one of the paper’s authors (Max Tegmark) who feels that our universe itself is a mathematical construct:

Here, I will push this idea to its extreme and argue that our universe is not just described by mathematics – it is mathematics. While this hypothesis might sound rather far-fetched, it makes startling predictions about the structure of the universe that could be testable by observations. It should also be useful in narrowing down what an ultimate theory of everything could look like….

So here is the crux of my argument. If you believe in an external reality independent of humans, then you must also believe in what I call the mathematical universe hypothesis: that our physical reality is a mathematical structure. In other words, we all live in a gigantic mathematical object – one that is more elaborate than a dodecahedron, and probably also more complex than objects with intimidating names like Calabi-Yau manifolds, tensor bundles and Hilbert spaces, which appear in today’s most advanced theories. Everything in our world is purely mathematical – including you.

Tegmark also feels that this hypothesis leads inevitably to the conclusion that multiverses exist that embody different combinations of dimensionless parameters; we just happen to be in one in which life as we know it can evolve. I’m impressed that Tegmark et al. in the “Dimensionless parameters” paper were willing to include “design” as one explanation for the “fine-tuned for life” values of the parameters, though (rightly) stating that physicists prefer the others:

So why do we observer these 31 parameters to have the particular values listed in Table 1? Interest in that question has grown the the gradual realization that some of these parameters appear fine-tuned for life, in the sense that small relative changes to their values would result in dramatic qualitative changes that could preclude intelligent life, and hence the very possibility of reflective observation. As discussed extensively elsewhere [list of footnotes], there are four common responses to this realization:

1. Fluke: Any apparent fine-tuning is a fluke and is best ignored.
2. Multiverse: These parameters vary across an ensemble of physically realized and (for all practical purposes) parallel universes, and we find ourselves in one where life is possible.
3. Design: Our universe is somehow created or simulated with parameters chose to allow life.
4. Fecundity: There is no fine-tuning, because intelligent life of some form will emerge under extremely varied circumstances.

Options 1, 2 and 4 tend to be preferred by physicists, with recent developments in inflation and high-energy theory given new popularity to option 2. (Tegmark et al., Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 023505, pp. 1-4)

No great theological or philosophic intent to this posting, other than I tend to lean towards the “Design” answer. My intended college major during my senior year of high school was astrophysics; that came to a halt upon reading an article about the bartenders and cab drivers with PhDs in astrophysics, but I remain interested in the topic. On the other hand, as someone who has done real-world simulation work (cruise missiles, large space structures, the Space Shuttle flight simulators, and tectonic processes on Venus), I’m keenly aware of how model definition and parameter selection directly leads to your results. ..bruce..