1. Goldilocks Zone:
Argument from Cosmological Fine Tuning
Argument from Cosmological Fine Tuning
Summary:
Earth is in a unique position in space to support life.
Guillermo Gonzalez, Cuban-American astronomer, 1963-
“Certainly, our type of galaxy optimizes habitability, because it provides safe zones. And Earth happens to be located in a safe area, which is why life has been able to flourish here.
“You see, galaxies have varying degrees of star formation, where interstellar gases coalesce to form stars, star clusters, and massive stars that blow up as supernovae. Places with active star formation are very dangerous, because that's where you have supernovae exploding at a fairly high rate. In our galaxy, those dangerous places are primarily in the spiral arms, where there are also hazardous giant molecular clouds. Fortunately, though, we happen to be situated safely between the Sagittarius and Perseus spiral arms.
“Also, we're very far from the nucleus of the galaxy, which is also a dangerous place. We now know that there's a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. In fact, the Hubble space telescope has found that nearly every large nearby galaxy has a giant black hole at its nucleus. And believe me–those are dangerous things!...
“Now, put all of this together–the inner region of the galaxy is much more dangerous from radiation and other threats; the outer part of the galaxy isn't going to be able to form Earth-like planets because the heavy elements are not abundant enough; and I haven't even mentioned how the thin disk of our galaxy helps our sun stay in its desirable circular orbit. A very eccentric orbit could cause it to cross spiral arms and visit the dangerous inner regions of the galaxy, but being circular it remains in the safe zone.
“All of this works together to create a narrow safe zone where life-sustaining planets are possible...
“In terms of habitability, I think we are in the best possible place. That's because our location provides enough building blocks to yield an Earth, while providing a low level of threats to life. I really can't come up with an example of another place in the galaxy that is as friendly to life as our location. Sometimes people claim you can be in any part of any galaxy. Well, I've studied other regions–spiral arms, galactic centers, globular clusters, edge of disks–and no matter where it is, it's worse for life. I can't think of any better place than where we are.”
― Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p178-180
“First let's talk about Earth's mass. A terrestrial planet must have a minimum mass to retain and atmosphere. You need an atmosphere for the free exchange of the chemicals of life and to protect inhabitants from cosmic radiation. And you need an oxygen-rich atmosphere to support big-brained creatures like humans. Earth's atmosphere is twenty percent oxygen–just right, it turns out.
“And the planet has to be a minimum size to keep the heat from its interior from being lost too quickly. It's the heat from its radioactive decaying interior that drives the critically important mantle convection inside the Earth. If Earth were smaller, like Mars, it would cool down too quickly; in fact, Mars cooled down and basically is dead.”
― Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p191
“More and more, astronomers are learning how the other planets tie into the habitability of Earth. For example, George Wetherill of the Carnegie Institution showed in 1994 that Jupiter–which is huge more than three hundred times the mass of the Earth–acts as a shield to protect us from too many comet impacts. It actually deflects comets and keeps many of them from coming into the inner solar system, where they could collide with Earth with life-extinguishing consequences...
“There's a concept invented by astrobiologists called the Circumstellar habitable Zone. That's the region around a star where you can have liquid water on the surface of a terrestrial planet. This is determined by the amount of light you get from the host star.
“You can't be too close, otherwise too much water evaporates into the atmosphere and it causes a runaway greenhouse effect, and you boil off the oceans. We think that might be what happened to Venus. But if you get too far out, it gets too cold. Water and carbon dioxide freeze and you eventually develop runaway glaciation.
“The main point is that as you go further out from the sun, you have to increase the carbon dioxide content of the planet's atmosphere. This is necessary in order to trap the sun's radiation and keep water liquid. The problem is that there wouldn't be enough oxygen to have mammal-like organisms. It's only in the very inner edge of the Circumstellar Habitable Zone where you can have low enough carbon dioxide and high enough oxygen to sustain complex animal life. And that's where we are.”
― Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p183-184
“Certainly, our type of galaxy optimizes habitability, because it provides safe zones. And Earth happens to be located in a safe area, which is why life has been able to flourish here.
“You see, galaxies have varying degrees of star formation, where interstellar gases coalesce to form stars, star clusters, and massive stars that blow up as supernovae. Places with active star formation are very dangerous, because that's where you have supernovae exploding at a fairly high rate. In our galaxy, those dangerous places are primarily in the spiral arms, where there are also hazardous giant molecular clouds. Fortunately, though, we happen to be situated safely between the Sagittarius and Perseus spiral arms.
“Also, we're very far from the nucleus of the galaxy, which is also a dangerous place. We now know that there's a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. In fact, the Hubble space telescope has found that nearly every large nearby galaxy has a giant black hole at its nucleus. And believe me–those are dangerous things!...
“Now, put all of this together–the inner region of the galaxy is much more dangerous from radiation and other threats; the outer part of the galaxy isn't going to be able to form Earth-like planets because the heavy elements are not abundant enough; and I haven't even mentioned how the thin disk of our galaxy helps our sun stay in its desirable circular orbit. A very eccentric orbit could cause it to cross spiral arms and visit the dangerous inner regions of the galaxy, but being circular it remains in the safe zone.
“All of this works together to create a narrow safe zone where life-sustaining planets are possible...
“In terms of habitability, I think we are in the best possible place. That's because our location provides enough building blocks to yield an Earth, while providing a low level of threats to life. I really can't come up with an example of another place in the galaxy that is as friendly to life as our location. Sometimes people claim you can be in any part of any galaxy. Well, I've studied other regions–spiral arms, galactic centers, globular clusters, edge of disks–and no matter where it is, it's worse for life. I can't think of any better place than where we are.”
― Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p178-180
“First let's talk about Earth's mass. A terrestrial planet must have a minimum mass to retain and atmosphere. You need an atmosphere for the free exchange of the chemicals of life and to protect inhabitants from cosmic radiation. And you need an oxygen-rich atmosphere to support big-brained creatures like humans. Earth's atmosphere is twenty percent oxygen–just right, it turns out.
“And the planet has to be a minimum size to keep the heat from its interior from being lost too quickly. It's the heat from its radioactive decaying interior that drives the critically important mantle convection inside the Earth. If Earth were smaller, like Mars, it would cool down too quickly; in fact, Mars cooled down and basically is dead.”
― Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p191
“More and more, astronomers are learning how the other planets tie into the habitability of Earth. For example, George Wetherill of the Carnegie Institution showed in 1994 that Jupiter–which is huge more than three hundred times the mass of the Earth–acts as a shield to protect us from too many comet impacts. It actually deflects comets and keeps many of them from coming into the inner solar system, where they could collide with Earth with life-extinguishing consequences...
“There's a concept invented by astrobiologists called the Circumstellar habitable Zone. That's the region around a star where you can have liquid water on the surface of a terrestrial planet. This is determined by the amount of light you get from the host star.
“You can't be too close, otherwise too much water evaporates into the atmosphere and it causes a runaway greenhouse effect, and you boil off the oceans. We think that might be what happened to Venus. But if you get too far out, it gets too cold. Water and carbon dioxide freeze and you eventually develop runaway glaciation.
“The main point is that as you go further out from the sun, you have to increase the carbon dioxide content of the planet's atmosphere. This is necessary in order to trap the sun's radiation and keep water liquid. The problem is that there wouldn't be enough oxygen to have mammal-like organisms. It's only in the very inner edge of the Circumstellar Habitable Zone where you can have low enough carbon dioxide and high enough oxygen to sustain complex animal life. And that's where we are.”
― Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p183-184
2. Anthropic Principle:
Argument from Fine Tuning of Physical Laws
Argument from Fine Tuning of Physical Laws
Summary:
“Anthropic Principle: Conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist” (Merriam-Webster)
The universal conditions and physical laws required to support life are very specific and the chances of them happening are too low to have happened by chance.
The universal conditions and physical laws required to support life are very specific and the chances of them happening are too low to have happened by chance.
Freeman Dyson, English-American theoretical physicist, 1923-2020
“As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known we were coming."
― Freeman Dyson, Energy in the Universe, Scientific American, 224, 1971, p50
“As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known we were coming."
― Freeman Dyson, Energy in the Universe, Scientific American, 224, 1971, p50
Arno Penzias, American Nobel-Prize winning physicist, 1933-
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying plan.”
— Arno Penzias, (quoted by Margenau & Varghese), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, Open Court Publishing, 1992 p83
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying plan.”
— Arno Penzias, (quoted by Margenau & Varghese), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, Open Court Publishing, 1992 p83
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, American philosopher, 1958-
“The second category of evidence would be for ‘anthropic fine-tuning.’ This means the fundamental laws and parameters of physics have precise numerical values that could have been otherwise. That is, there's no fundamental reason why these values have to be the way they are. Yet all of these laws and constants conspire in a mathematically incredible way to make life in the universe possible.
“Take the expansion rate of the universe, which is fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is, if it were changed by one part in either direction–a little faster, a little slower–we could not have a universe that would be capable of supporting life.
“As Sir Fred Hoyle commented, ‘A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.’
“Well, maybe this looks fine-tuned because there actually is fine-tuner. In the opinion of physicist Paul Davies, ‘The impression of design is overwhelming.’ And I thoroughly agree. This is powerful evidence for intelligent design.”
— Stephen C. Meyer, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p81-82
“The second category of evidence would be for ‘anthropic fine-tuning.’ This means the fundamental laws and parameters of physics have precise numerical values that could have been otherwise. That is, there's no fundamental reason why these values have to be the way they are. Yet all of these laws and constants conspire in a mathematically incredible way to make life in the universe possible.
“Take the expansion rate of the universe, which is fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is, if it were changed by one part in either direction–a little faster, a little slower–we could not have a universe that would be capable of supporting life.
“As Sir Fred Hoyle commented, ‘A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.’
“Well, maybe this looks fine-tuned because there actually is fine-tuner. In the opinion of physicist Paul Davies, ‘The impression of design is overwhelming.’ And I thoroughly agree. This is powerful evidence for intelligent design.”
— Stephen C. Meyer, PhD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p81-82
William Lane Craig, PhD, ThD, American philosopher & theologian, 1949-
“You see, the Big Bang was not a chaotic, disorderly event. Instead, it appears to have been fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a complexity and precision that literally defies human comprehension. In other words, the universe we see today–and our very existence–depends upon a set of highly special initial conditions. This phenomenon is strong evidence that the Big Bang was not an accident, but that it was designed. Theorists who are uncomfortable about that want to avoid the problem by trying to explain how you can get a universe like ours without these special initial conditions. Inflation is one attempt to do this...
“Inflation says that in the very, very early history of the universe, the universe underwent a period of super-rapid, or ‘inflationary,’ expansion. Then it settled down to the more leisurely expansion we observe today. This inflationary expansion supposedly avoids the problem of the initial conditions of the universe by blowing them out beyond the range of what we can observe. So in a sense inflation isn't something that is motivated by the scientific evidence; it's motivated by a desire to avoid these special initial conditions that are present in the standard model.”
— William Lane Craig, PhD, ThD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p112-113
“You see, the Big Bang was not a chaotic, disorderly event. Instead, it appears to have been fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a complexity and precision that literally defies human comprehension. In other words, the universe we see today–and our very existence–depends upon a set of highly special initial conditions. This phenomenon is strong evidence that the Big Bang was not an accident, but that it was designed. Theorists who are uncomfortable about that want to avoid the problem by trying to explain how you can get a universe like ours without these special initial conditions. Inflation is one attempt to do this...
“Inflation says that in the very, very early history of the universe, the universe underwent a period of super-rapid, or ‘inflationary,’ expansion. Then it settled down to the more leisurely expansion we observe today. This inflationary expansion supposedly avoids the problem of the initial conditions of the universe by blowing them out beyond the range of what we can observe. So in a sense inflation isn't something that is motivated by the scientific evidence; it's motivated by a desire to avoid these special initial conditions that are present in the standard model.”
— William Lane Craig, PhD, ThD (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p112-113
Robin Collins, PhD, American philosopher -
“When scientists talk about the fine-tuning of the universe, they're generally referring to the extraordinary balancing of the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. Our minds can't comprehend the precision of some of them. The result is a universe that has just the right foundations to sustain life. The coincidences are simply too amazing to have been the result of happenstance–as Paul Davies said, ‘the impression of design is overwhelming.’
“I like to use the analogy of astronauts landing on Mars and finding an enclosed biosphere, sort of like the domed structure that was built in Arizona a few years ago. At the control panel they find that all the dials for its environment are set just right for life. The oxygen ratio is perfect; the temperature is seventy degrees; the humidity is fifty percent; there's a system for replenishing the air; there are systems for producing food, generating energy, and disposing of wastes. Each dial has a huge range of possible settings, and you can see if you were to adjust one or more of them just a little bit, the environment would go out of whack and life would be impossible. What conclusion would you draw from that?
“You'd conclude that this biosphere was not there by accident. Volcanoes didn't erupt and spew out the right compounds that just happened to assemble themselves into the biosphere. Some intelligent being had intentionally and carefully designed and prepared it to support living creatures. And that's an analogy for our universe.
“Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor's edge for life to exist. The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped has been monkeying with the physics.
“Way back in the late 1950s, Hoyle talked about the precise process by which carbon and oxygen are produced in a certain ratio inside stars. If you tinker with the resonance states of carbon, you won't get the materials you need for building life. Incidentally, recent studies by the physicist Heinz Oberhummer and his colleagues show that just a one-percent change in the strong nuclear force would have a thirty- to a thousand-fold impact on the production of oxygen and carbon in stars. Since stars provide the carbon and oxygen needed for life on planets, if you throw that off balance, conditions in the universe would be much less optimal for the existence of life.”
— Robin Collins, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p137-138
“Let's talk about gravity. Imagine a ruler, or one of those old-fashioned linear radio dials, that goes all the way across the universe. It would be broken down into one-inch increments, which means there would be billions upon billions upon billions of inches.
“The entire dial represents the range of force strengths in nature, with gravity being the weakest force and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei being the strongest, a whopping ten thousand billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity. The range of possible settings for the force of gravity can plausibly be taken to be at least as large as the total range of force strengths.
“Now, let's imagine that you want to move the dial from where it's currently set. Even if you were to move it by only one inch, the impact on life in the universe would be catastrophic.
“That small adjustment of the dial would increase gravity by a billion-fold...
“Relative to the entire radio dial–that is, the total range of force strengths in nature–it's extraordinarily small, just one part in ten thousand billion billion billion.
“Animals anywhere near the size of human beings would be crushed. As astrophysicist Martin Rees said, ‘In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger.’ In fact, a planet with a gravitational pull of a thousand times that of the Earth would have a diameter of only forty feet, which wouldn't be enough to sustain an ecosystem. Besides which, stars with lifetimes of more than a billion years–compared to ten billion years for our sun–couldn't exist if you increase gravity by just three thousand times.
“As you can see, compared to the total range of force strengths in nature, gravity has an incomprehensibly narrow range for life to exist. Of all the possible settings on the dial, from one side of the universe to the other, it happens to be situated in the exact right fraction of an inch of make you universe capable of sustaining life.”
— Robin Collins, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p138-139
“When scientists talk about the fine-tuning of the universe, they're generally referring to the extraordinary balancing of the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. Our minds can't comprehend the precision of some of them. The result is a universe that has just the right foundations to sustain life. The coincidences are simply too amazing to have been the result of happenstance–as Paul Davies said, ‘the impression of design is overwhelming.’
“I like to use the analogy of astronauts landing on Mars and finding an enclosed biosphere, sort of like the domed structure that was built in Arizona a few years ago. At the control panel they find that all the dials for its environment are set just right for life. The oxygen ratio is perfect; the temperature is seventy degrees; the humidity is fifty percent; there's a system for replenishing the air; there are systems for producing food, generating energy, and disposing of wastes. Each dial has a huge range of possible settings, and you can see if you were to adjust one or more of them just a little bit, the environment would go out of whack and life would be impossible. What conclusion would you draw from that?
“You'd conclude that this biosphere was not there by accident. Volcanoes didn't erupt and spew out the right compounds that just happened to assemble themselves into the biosphere. Some intelligent being had intentionally and carefully designed and prepared it to support living creatures. And that's an analogy for our universe.
“Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor's edge for life to exist. The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped has been monkeying with the physics.
“Way back in the late 1950s, Hoyle talked about the precise process by which carbon and oxygen are produced in a certain ratio inside stars. If you tinker with the resonance states of carbon, you won't get the materials you need for building life. Incidentally, recent studies by the physicist Heinz Oberhummer and his colleagues show that just a one-percent change in the strong nuclear force would have a thirty- to a thousand-fold impact on the production of oxygen and carbon in stars. Since stars provide the carbon and oxygen needed for life on planets, if you throw that off balance, conditions in the universe would be much less optimal for the existence of life.”
— Robin Collins, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p137-138
“Let's talk about gravity. Imagine a ruler, or one of those old-fashioned linear radio dials, that goes all the way across the universe. It would be broken down into one-inch increments, which means there would be billions upon billions upon billions of inches.
“The entire dial represents the range of force strengths in nature, with gravity being the weakest force and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei being the strongest, a whopping ten thousand billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity. The range of possible settings for the force of gravity can plausibly be taken to be at least as large as the total range of force strengths.
“Now, let's imagine that you want to move the dial from where it's currently set. Even if you were to move it by only one inch, the impact on life in the universe would be catastrophic.
“That small adjustment of the dial would increase gravity by a billion-fold...
“Relative to the entire radio dial–that is, the total range of force strengths in nature–it's extraordinarily small, just one part in ten thousand billion billion billion.
“Animals anywhere near the size of human beings would be crushed. As astrophysicist Martin Rees said, ‘In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger.’ In fact, a planet with a gravitational pull of a thousand times that of the Earth would have a diameter of only forty feet, which wouldn't be enough to sustain an ecosystem. Besides which, stars with lifetimes of more than a billion years–compared to ten billion years for our sun–couldn't exist if you increase gravity by just three thousand times.
“As you can see, compared to the total range of force strengths in nature, gravity has an incomprehensibly narrow range for life to exist. Of all the possible settings on the dial, from one side of the universe to the other, it happens to be situated in the exact right fraction of an inch of make you universe capable of sustaining life.”
— Robin Collins, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p138-139
Guillermo Gonzalez, Cuban-American astronomer, 1963-
“It's true that in order to have life you need water–which is the universal solvent–for reactions to take place, as well as carbon, which serves as the core atom of the information-carrying structural molecules of life. But you also need a lot more. Humans require twenty-six essential elements; a bacterium about sixteen. Intermediate life forms are between those two numbers. The problem is that not just any planetary body will be the source of all those chemical ingredients in the necessary forms and amounts...
“Unfortunately, people see life as being easy to create. They think it's enough merely to have liquid water, because they see life as an epiphenomenon–just a piece of slime mold growing on an inert piece of granite. Actually, the Earth's geology and biology interact very tightly with each other. You can't think of life as being independent of the geophysical and meteorological processes of the planet. They interact in a very intimate way. So you need not only the right chemicals for life but also a planetary environment that's tuned to life.”
— Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p173-174
Strobel: “As we look out at the billions of stars that constitute our Milky Way galaxy, can't we logically assume that planets teeming with life are strewn all over the place?”
Gonzalez: “No. That's not a logical assumption based on the evidence. Along with Don Brownlee and Peter Ward of the University of Washington, I developed a concept called the Galactic Habitable Zone–that is, a zone in the galaxy where habitable planets might be possible. You see, you just can't form a habitable planet anywhere; there's a large number of threats to life as you go from place to place.”
— Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p176
“It's true that in order to have life you need water–which is the universal solvent–for reactions to take place, as well as carbon, which serves as the core atom of the information-carrying structural molecules of life. But you also need a lot more. Humans require twenty-six essential elements; a bacterium about sixteen. Intermediate life forms are between those two numbers. The problem is that not just any planetary body will be the source of all those chemical ingredients in the necessary forms and amounts...
“Unfortunately, people see life as being easy to create. They think it's enough merely to have liquid water, because they see life as an epiphenomenon–just a piece of slime mold growing on an inert piece of granite. Actually, the Earth's geology and biology interact very tightly with each other. You can't think of life as being independent of the geophysical and meteorological processes of the planet. They interact in a very intimate way. So you need not only the right chemicals for life but also a planetary environment that's tuned to life.”
— Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p173-174
Strobel: “As we look out at the billions of stars that constitute our Milky Way galaxy, can't we logically assume that planets teeming with life are strewn all over the place?”
Gonzalez: “No. That's not a logical assumption based on the evidence. Along with Don Brownlee and Peter Ward of the University of Washington, I developed a concept called the Galactic Habitable Zone–that is, a zone in the galaxy where habitable planets might be possible. You see, you just can't form a habitable planet anywhere; there's a large number of threats to life as you go from place to place.”
— Guillermo Gonzalez, PhD, (quoted by Lee Strobel), A Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004 p176
J.P. Moreland, American philosopher & theologian, 1948-
“...Take, for example, the argument for God based on the design in the universe. In spite of David Hume, this argument has received strong support in recent years from astronomy, physics, and biology. Scientists are discovering that the universe is a finely-tuned and delicately-balanced harmony of fundamental constants, or cosmic singularities. These constants are the numerical values assigned to the various facets of the universe, such as the rate of expansion of the Big Bang, the value of the weak and strong nuclear forces, and a host of other constants of nature.
“For example, in the formation of the universe, the balance of matter to antimatter had to be accurate to one part in ten billion for the universe to even arise. Had it been larger or greater by one part in ten billion, no universe would have arisen. There would also have been no universe capable of sustaining life if the expansion rate of the Big Bang had been one billionth of a percent larger or smaller.
“Furthermore, the chance possibilities of life arising spontaneously through mere chance has been calculated by Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle as being 1x10^40, which Hoyle likens to the probabilities of a tornado blowing through a junkyard and forming a Boeing 747. Had these values, these cosmic constants which are independent of one another, been infinitesimally greater or smaller than what they are, no life remotely similar to ours–indeed, no life at all–would have been possible. The more we discover, the more it appears, as one scientist put it, ‘The universe seems to have evolved with life in mind.’
“The harmony of these features cannot be explained by mere chance.”
— J.P. Moreland, Does God Exist?, Prometheus Books, 1988 p35
“...Take, for example, the argument for God based on the design in the universe. In spite of David Hume, this argument has received strong support in recent years from astronomy, physics, and biology. Scientists are discovering that the universe is a finely-tuned and delicately-balanced harmony of fundamental constants, or cosmic singularities. These constants are the numerical values assigned to the various facets of the universe, such as the rate of expansion of the Big Bang, the value of the weak and strong nuclear forces, and a host of other constants of nature.
“For example, in the formation of the universe, the balance of matter to antimatter had to be accurate to one part in ten billion for the universe to even arise. Had it been larger or greater by one part in ten billion, no universe would have arisen. There would also have been no universe capable of sustaining life if the expansion rate of the Big Bang had been one billionth of a percent larger or smaller.
“Furthermore, the chance possibilities of life arising spontaneously through mere chance has been calculated by Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle as being 1x10^40, which Hoyle likens to the probabilities of a tornado blowing through a junkyard and forming a Boeing 747. Had these values, these cosmic constants which are independent of one another, been infinitesimally greater or smaller than what they are, no life remotely similar to ours–indeed, no life at all–would have been possible. The more we discover, the more it appears, as one scientist put it, ‘The universe seems to have evolved with life in mind.’
“The harmony of these features cannot be explained by mere chance.”
— J.P. Moreland, Does God Exist?, Prometheus Books, 1988 p35
Paul Davies, PhD, English physicist & professor, 1946-
“The situation becomes even more intriguing when we take into account the existence of living organisms. The fact that biological systems have very special requirements, and that these requirements are, happily, met by nature, has been commented upon at least since the seventeenth century. It is only in the twentieth century, however, with the development of biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology, that the full picture has emerged. Already in 1913 the distinguished Harvard biochemist Lawrence Henderson wrote: ‘The properties of matter and the course of cosmic evolution are now seen to be intimately related to the structure of the living being and to its activities; ...the biologist may now rightly regard the Universe in its very essence as biocentric.’ Henderson was led to this surprising view from his work on the regulation of acidity and alkalinity in living organisms, and the way that such regulation depends crucially upon the rather special properties of certain chemical substances. He was also greatly impressed at how water, which has a number of anomalous properties, is incorporated into life at a basic level. Had these various substances not existed, or had the laws of physics been somewhat different so that the substances did not enjoy these special properties, then life (at least as we know it) would be impossible. Henderson regarded the ‘fitness of the environment’ for life as too great to be accidental, and asked what manner of law is capable of explaining such a match.
“In the 1960s the astronomer Fred Hoyle noted that the element carbon, whose peculiar chemical properties make it crucial to terrestrial life, is manufactured from helium inside large stars. It is released therefrom by supernovae explosions, as discussed in the previous section. While investigating the nuclear reactions that lead to the formation of carbon in the stellar cores, Hoyle was struck by the fact that the key reaction proceeds only because of a lucky fluke. Carbon nuclei are made by a rather trickly process involving the simultaneous encounter of three high-speed helium nuclei, which then stick together. Because of the rarity of triple-nucleus encounters, the reaction can proceed at a significant rate only at certain well-defined energies (termed ‘resonances’), where the reaction rate is substantially amplified by quantum effects. By good fortune, one of these resonances is positioned just about right to correspond to the sort of energies that helium nuclei have inside large stars. Curiously, Hoyle did not know this at the time, but he predicted that it must be so on the basis that carbon is an abundant element in nature. Experiment subsequently proved him right. A detailed study also revealed other ‘coincidences’ without which carbon would not be both produced and preserved inside stars. Hoyle was so impressed by this ‘monstrous series of accidents,’ he was prompted to comment that it was as if ‘the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.’ Later he was to expound the view that the universe looks like a ‘put-up job,’ as though somebody had been ‘monkeying’ with the laws of physics.
“These examples are intended merely as a sample. A long list of additional ‘lucky accidents’ and ‘coincidences’ has been compiled since, most notably by the astrophysicists Brandon Carter, Bernard Carr, and Martin Rees. Taken together, they provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on. As these examples have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, I will not list them here. Suffice it to say that, if we could play God, and select values for these quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish. In their book Cosmic Coincidences John Gribbon and Martin Rees conclude: ‘The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves.’
“It is a truism that we can only observe a universe that is consistent with our own existence. As I have mentioned, this linage between human observership and the laws and conditions of the universe has become known, somewhat unfortunately, as the Anthropic Principle. In the trivial form just stated, the Anthropic Principle does not assert that our existence somehow compels the laws of physics to have the form they do, nor need one conclude that the laws have been deliberately designed with people in mind. On the other hand, the fact that even slight changes to the way things are might render the universe unobservable is surely a fact of deep significance.”
— Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Touchstone, 1992 p198-200
“Some people conclude from this that science has robbed the universe of all mystery and purpose, and that the elaborate arrangement of the physical world is either a mindless accident or an inevitable consequence of mechanistic laws. ‘The more the universe seems to be comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,’ believes physicist Steven Weinberg. The biologist Jacques Monod echoes this dismal sentiment: ‘The ancient covenant is in pieces: man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance. Neither his destiny nor his duty have been written down.’
“Not all scientists, however, draw the same conclusions from the facts. Though accepting that the organization of nature can be explained by the laws of physics, together with suitable cosmic initial conditions, some scientists recognize that many of the complex structures and systems in the universe depend for their existence on the particular form of these laws and initial conditions. Furthermore, in some cases the existence of complexity in nature seems to be very finely balanced, so that even small changes in the form of the laws would apparently prevent this complexity from arising. A careful study suggests that the laws of the universe are remarkably felicitous for the emergence of richness and variety. In the case of living organisms, their existence seems to depend on a number of fortuitous coincidences that some scientists and philosophers have hailed as nothing short of astonishing.”
— Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Touchstone, 1992 p194-195
“The situation becomes even more intriguing when we take into account the existence of living organisms. The fact that biological systems have very special requirements, and that these requirements are, happily, met by nature, has been commented upon at least since the seventeenth century. It is only in the twentieth century, however, with the development of biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology, that the full picture has emerged. Already in 1913 the distinguished Harvard biochemist Lawrence Henderson wrote: ‘The properties of matter and the course of cosmic evolution are now seen to be intimately related to the structure of the living being and to its activities; ...the biologist may now rightly regard the Universe in its very essence as biocentric.’ Henderson was led to this surprising view from his work on the regulation of acidity and alkalinity in living organisms, and the way that such regulation depends crucially upon the rather special properties of certain chemical substances. He was also greatly impressed at how water, which has a number of anomalous properties, is incorporated into life at a basic level. Had these various substances not existed, or had the laws of physics been somewhat different so that the substances did not enjoy these special properties, then life (at least as we know it) would be impossible. Henderson regarded the ‘fitness of the environment’ for life as too great to be accidental, and asked what manner of law is capable of explaining such a match.
“In the 1960s the astronomer Fred Hoyle noted that the element carbon, whose peculiar chemical properties make it crucial to terrestrial life, is manufactured from helium inside large stars. It is released therefrom by supernovae explosions, as discussed in the previous section. While investigating the nuclear reactions that lead to the formation of carbon in the stellar cores, Hoyle was struck by the fact that the key reaction proceeds only because of a lucky fluke. Carbon nuclei are made by a rather trickly process involving the simultaneous encounter of three high-speed helium nuclei, which then stick together. Because of the rarity of triple-nucleus encounters, the reaction can proceed at a significant rate only at certain well-defined energies (termed ‘resonances’), where the reaction rate is substantially amplified by quantum effects. By good fortune, one of these resonances is positioned just about right to correspond to the sort of energies that helium nuclei have inside large stars. Curiously, Hoyle did not know this at the time, but he predicted that it must be so on the basis that carbon is an abundant element in nature. Experiment subsequently proved him right. A detailed study also revealed other ‘coincidences’ without which carbon would not be both produced and preserved inside stars. Hoyle was so impressed by this ‘monstrous series of accidents,’ he was prompted to comment that it was as if ‘the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.’ Later he was to expound the view that the universe looks like a ‘put-up job,’ as though somebody had been ‘monkeying’ with the laws of physics.
“These examples are intended merely as a sample. A long list of additional ‘lucky accidents’ and ‘coincidences’ has been compiled since, most notably by the astrophysicists Brandon Carter, Bernard Carr, and Martin Rees. Taken together, they provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on. As these examples have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, I will not list them here. Suffice it to say that, if we could play God, and select values for these quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish. In their book Cosmic Coincidences John Gribbon and Martin Rees conclude: ‘The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves.’
“It is a truism that we can only observe a universe that is consistent with our own existence. As I have mentioned, this linage between human observership and the laws and conditions of the universe has become known, somewhat unfortunately, as the Anthropic Principle. In the trivial form just stated, the Anthropic Principle does not assert that our existence somehow compels the laws of physics to have the form they do, nor need one conclude that the laws have been deliberately designed with people in mind. On the other hand, the fact that even slight changes to the way things are might render the universe unobservable is surely a fact of deep significance.”
— Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Touchstone, 1992 p198-200
“Some people conclude from this that science has robbed the universe of all mystery and purpose, and that the elaborate arrangement of the physical world is either a mindless accident or an inevitable consequence of mechanistic laws. ‘The more the universe seems to be comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,’ believes physicist Steven Weinberg. The biologist Jacques Monod echoes this dismal sentiment: ‘The ancient covenant is in pieces: man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance. Neither his destiny nor his duty have been written down.’
“Not all scientists, however, draw the same conclusions from the facts. Though accepting that the organization of nature can be explained by the laws of physics, together with suitable cosmic initial conditions, some scientists recognize that many of the complex structures and systems in the universe depend for their existence on the particular form of these laws and initial conditions. Furthermore, in some cases the existence of complexity in nature seems to be very finely balanced, so that even small changes in the form of the laws would apparently prevent this complexity from arising. A careful study suggests that the laws of the universe are remarkably felicitous for the emergence of richness and variety. In the case of living organisms, their existence seems to depend on a number of fortuitous coincidences that some scientists and philosophers have hailed as nothing short of astonishing.”
— Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Touchstone, 1992 p194-195