.........................................................................
Life On Earth Is So Special
Is the Universe a Product of Design or Chance?
OPTIONS
FOR ORIGINS
The
choices in accounting for our universe boil down to three: Chance, multiple
universes, or design.
Scientists are looking at the extreme rarity of life in our
universe and asking, “why are we so
lucky?”
At some point you’ve got to step back from the facts and ask
the question “So what does all this
fine-tuning add up to?”
Example:
A
university student who’s just trying to get a passing grade might be satisfied
with loading
up his short-term memory with the data he’s received. But a student who is actually planning to use this information in a career, or for personal enrichment, has to spend some time thinking about the subject’s actual meaning.
up his short-term memory with the data he’s received. But a student who is actually planning to use this information in a career, or for personal enrichment, has to spend some time thinking about the subject’s actual meaning.
Same
thing with the question of how quasars, Pluto, and you got here.
The
evidences for the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life to exist on one
medium-sized planet, third from the left, are mounting.
Many
scientists are speaking in theological terms about what they see as clear
evidence for design.
If
you were to survey the writings of leading scientists such as Hawking, Penrose,
Davies, and Greene, you would find that there are three options being offered
for our origins.
• The fine-tuning of the universe is merely a coincidence.
• There are other universes, improving the odds of life.
• The universe has been designed.
LUCKY
YOU
Some
materialists attribute the fine-tuning of the universe to chance.
In Alpha & Omega, Charles Seife
summarizes how some view the fine-tuning: “It
seems like a tremendous coincidence that the universe is suitable for life.”
Cosmologists Bernard Carr and Sir Martin Rees state in the
journal Nature, “Nature does
exhibit remarkable coincidences and these do warrant some explanation.”
In a later article Carr comments, “One would have to conclude either that the features of the universe
invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are only coincidences or that the
universe was indeed tailor-made for life. I will leave it to the theologians to
ascertain the identity of the tailor.”
In
other words, as a scientist, I don’t get into religion, so I
assume it was all a lucky break.
Scientists
who subscribe to a materialistic world view simply can’t bring themselves to
accept the intervention of an intelligent designer who orchestrated the creation
of the universe.
Therefore,
faced with all the evidence for fine-tuning, they default to the position that
it was all just a coincidence.
There
is, however, a defense often raised by those who take the viewpoint that life,
and the fine-tuning of the universe, are just amazing coincidences.
It
goes like this: Whatever shape the universe took, one could look at the
sequence of events and say that it was just as unlikely that the universe
should have developed in that way.
In
other words, every state of affairs, from a certain viewpoint, has astronomical
odds of its eventuating just the way it did.
So
why should we really be amazed that we won life’s cosmic lottery? Somebody had
to.
Let’s
consider how I lived out my day today as an example of this line of thinking:
What
are the odds that I would have gone to the post office, as opposed to the
grocery store or Blockbuster, and purchased 18 stamps instead of 20 or 30?
What
are the odds I would have received a phone call, rather than an e-mail, from my
friend Jeff?
What
are the odds I would have eaten — today of all days — hot dogs for dinner, when
I could have eaten so many other dishes that didn’t contain beef hearts?
By
the time you get to the end of the day, the odds of my living out my day in
exactly this way, as opposed to others, would be rather large.
I
could get to the end of the day and scratch my head in amazement at the chain
of events that have led me to my current sprawled position on my sofa staring
at my computer screen — Gee, what are the odds?
This
is a neat magic trick done with odds, and the inventor of it has a bright
career ahead of him as a pollster in politics.
Calculating
the odds for a particular sequence of ordinary events like my day’s
circumstances after they occur is no different
than predicting the winner of a race after it is over.
But
looking back on a finely-tuned universe and assigning probabilities of it
having occurred by chance is totally different. The two scenarios are different
as apples and oranges.
In
order to calculate the odds against our being here, over a hundred parameters
must be balanced on a razor’s edge. If just one of them was off by just a
slight degree, you wouldn’t be reading this.
ADD-ON
UNIVERSES
Most
scientists don’t believe such odds could be a coincidence. So how do
materialists explain odds that seem miraculous?
If
they don’t want to acknowledge an intentionally designed universe, they must
come up with another scenario that would explain it all, or their materialistic
premise is toast.
So
if you are trying to avoid the implication of a creator, you would want to
construct a theory that would decrease the odds of the universe being
miraculous.
If
you want to avoid the implication of a creator, your tack would be fairly
obvious: decrease the odds.
One
way you can decrease the odds is to add in the ingredient of several billion
years.
One
might imagine that the universe could plausibly bake up just about anything in
that much time, but even the 13.7 billion years that cosmologists estimate for
the age of the universe is way too short for life to have reasonably arisen by
natural means.
Therefore,
some scientists, such as Stephen Hawking and his Cambridge colleague Sir Martin
Rees, have taken a different approach.
They
have speculated that our universe might be merely one of many universes, thus
dramatically improving the odds for life in ours.
Let’s
listen to what Rees himself says concerning his motive behind the
multi-universe theory:
If one does not believe in providential design, but still
thinks the fine-tuning needs some explanation, there is another perspective — a
highly speculative one.… It is the one I prefer, however, even though in our
present state of knowledge any such preference can be no more than a
hunch.…There may be many “universes” of which ours is just one.
Rees
and Hawking have persuaded many in the scientific community that other
universes are possible, although highly speculative.
According
to Hawking, the multi-universe theory (also called the multiverse theory) would
rule out the need for a designer.
But
is the search for other universes driven by science, speculation or a
materialistic bias?
Seife, a mathematician and journalist for Science magazine,
explains what he believes to be the motivation behind the multi-universe
theory: “Scientists tend to be
uncomfortable with coincidences, and the many worlds interpretation gives a way
out.”
Rees,
a materialist, likes the multi-universe theory because it provides an
alternative to providential design.
The
undeniable reality of fine-tuning has energized the multi-universe theory,
since it gives hope to the materialist that life could exist without a
designer.
But
many scientists are raising their eyebrows at the speculative nature of the
multi-universe theory, considering its premise to be flawed.
IMAGINARY
TIME, IMAGINARY UNIVERSES?
Hawking
bases his theory on a mathematical concept called imaginary time, which is
merely a mathematical concept and doesn’t represent reality.
By
using imaginary time, Hawking is able to make it appear that the universe never
had a beginning.
Once again, scientists uncomfortable with a beginning are
seeking ways to avoid it. Hawking explains the reason for their avoidance: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we
could suppose it had a creator.”
Albert
Einstein used a different mathematical concept to remove the appearance of a
beginning. Later, Einstein admitted it to be his “biggest blunder.”
According
to theoretical physicist Julian Barbour, Hawking’s use of imaginary time may
also be a blunder. It has been “widely criticized” and has “technical
problems.”
Most
scientists are reluctant to endorse the concept of multiple universes because
it isn’t based upon any evidence, and can only be theorized in imaginary time.
Even
its greatest advocates, Hawking and Rees, admit multiple universes can never be
empirically verified. In The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene
calls the multi-universe theory “a huge if.”
Physicist
Paul Davies explains why materialists are so fervent in their attempts to
validate the multi-universe theory.
Whether
it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple
universes really exist or not. …
If
instead, the other universes are … ghost worlds, we must regard our existence
as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible.
Regarding
the multi-universe theory, Davies remarks, “Such a belief must rest on faith
rather than observation.”
Since
the multi-universe theory is based upon faith, most scientists regard it as
merely a hypothesis rather than a true scientific theory.
Yet
it still is being argued as a valid theory by Hawking, Rees, and others who
seek a materialistic explanation for our origin.
Investigative reporter Gregg Easterbrook, an investigative
reporter for the Atlantic Monthlyconcludes his research
on the multi-universe theory by stating: “The
multi-verse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they
came from a religious text.”
Hawking
and Rees should not be faulted for searching for a workable explanation; that’s
what scientists do.
But
this issue raises a red flag, not on Hawking or Rees, but (perhaps) on a
fundamental flaw of the scientific method.
If
it just happened to be true that God really was the cause of something, could
science ever discover this truth?
Wouldn’t
science have to offer a materialistic explanation, no matter how unlikely,
because the alternative is not an allowable option for them?
This
is, indeed, a problem, and it’s the issue that scientists who do see
intelligent design in the cosmos are wrestling with.
HANDMADE
UNIVERSE
In
Bringing Down the House, author Ben Mezrich tells the story of six MIT students
applying their skills in logic and mathematics to counting cards and other
trickery, who travel to Las Vegas and make millions.
They
were able to swing the odds in their favor. After a series of winning streaks,
they found themselves followed by house detectives who asked them to leave and
never return.
How
were they discovered? In one sense, they weren’t. No one actually ever caught
them cheating, but the MIT students did do something that was a dead giveaway:
they won.
Repeatedly
they beat the odds, and when the dealers and house detectives in Las Vegas
observe someone repeatedly beating the odds, they suspect intelligent design:
someone is not playing by the laws of random chance but by a carefully reasoned
system, like card counting.
The
fine-tuning in the universe is astounding and unimaginably improbable.
It
could be all coincidence or chance, or maybe there are multiple universes,
raising the odds and probability of life, but a good detective would be wise to
consider the distinct possibility that intelligent design lies behind the
observable phenomena.
TO
HUME IT MAY CONCERN…
It
is primarily due to the arguments of 18th-century English philosopher David
Hume that science has largely dismissed any argument for design in the
universe.
As a
materialist, Hume argued that the universe was a result of chance rather than
of intentional design. He believed miracles were impossible because they
couldn’t be subjected to scientific verification.
Hume’s
arguments refuting intelligent design have been extremely effective in
persuading scientists that all events in the world are from chance alone.
Hume’s basic logic is as follows:
1. The world is ordered.
2. This is due to either chance or design.
3. It is very possible that the world came about by chance.
Hume had several other arguments against design, but
according to mathematician William Dembski, he used faulty logic. “Hume incorrectly analyzed the logic of
the design argument, for the design argument is, properly speaking, neither an
argument from analogy nor an argument from induction but an inference to the
best explanation.”
Although
Hume’s influence on science has been pervasive, he lived in a day when
astronomy was in its infancy and the prevalent theory favored an eternal
universe. He wasn’t aware of the big bang theory that points to a beginner, or
the design implications of fine-tuning.
The
recently discovered fine-tuning of the cosmos has compelled even the most
ardent materialists to consider the possibility of intelligent design. What is
the best explanation for the fine-tuning?
When Hawking first realized that the universe couldn’t be a
mere coincidence, he related to a reporter, “The
odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like a big bang,
are enormous. … I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you
start to discuss the origins of the universe.”
Davies concurs. “It
seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.
… The impression of design is overwhelming.”
Some
scientists, such as Hawking, are uncomfortable with the obvious religious
implications.
But
cosmologist Edward Harrison speaks for others who respond to the evidence for
the fine-tuning by clearly stating the obvious:
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God. …
The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic
design.”
Take
your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that
requires only one.
Many
scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the … design argument.
Few
scientists believe the precise fine-tuning is merely a coincidence. While some
hold to the multi-universe theory, most scientists believe such a speculative
theory is beyond the boundaries of science.
Many
credible scientists have been persuaded by the evidence that our universe is
not here by accident but rather is the intentional plan of a super-intelligent
being.
Dr.
Robert Jastrow is a theoretical physicist who joined NASA when it was formed in
1958. Jastrow helped establish the scientific goals for the exploration of the
moon during the Apollo lunar landings.
He
set up and directed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which conducts
research in astronomy and planetary science. Jastrow wrote these thoughts that
summarize the view of many scientists.
For
the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends
like a bad dream.
He
has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak;
as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians
who have been sitting there for centuries.
THE
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
Astrophysicist
Stephen Hawking cites the term “anthropic principle” when attempting to explain
why the universe is so exquisitely fine-tuned for life.
Hawking writes, “it
seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the number that
would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. …One can take this
either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws
of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle.”
Hawking
has advocated the strong anthropic principle solution of many universes in
order to avoid the conclusion of a designer.
The
anthropic principle is a fancy term for stating the obvious about the
fine-tuning of the universe, i.e., if all the conditions in the universe
weren’t perfect for human life to exist, we wouldn’t be here to ask the
question of why it is so finely-tuned for life.
What
sounds like circular reasoning has led to a revival of the argument from
design, which had lost its intellectual respectability among many scientists
after Darwin.
One
aspect of the anthropic principle is that it asserts that our place in the
universe is special.
This
contradicts the general trend of science since Copernicus; that there is
nothing special about Earth (the Copernican principle).
Many
materialists who dislike the implications, squirm when discussing the anthropic
principle, and it remains a controversial topic.
But
thus far, no scientist has been able to refute the fine-tuning evidence that
supports its premise, and many believe it is simply a commonsensical way of
saying life on Earth is special.
No comments:
Post a Comment