Scientific proof that God created the universe?

The anthropic principle

One particular form of the teleological argument rests on the "anthropic principle". This version of the argument says that, if the global properties of the universe had been just slightly different, then life would have been impossible; therefore, some intelligent mind must have designed the basic properties of the universe with a view to making life possible.

In recent years, the scientific community has been stunned by the discovery of how complex and sensitive a set of conditions must prevail in order for the universe to permit the origin and evolution of intelligent life on Earth. The universe appears, in fact, to have been incredibly fine-tuned from the moment of its inception for the production of intelligent life at this point in cosmic history. In the various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics and biochemistry, various discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of intelligent carbon-based life on Earth depends upon a delicate balance of physical and cosmological quantities, such that if any one of these quantities were to be slightly altered, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist. When one mentally assigns different values to these constants or forces, one discovers that in fact the number of observable universes, that is to say, universes capable of supporting intelligent life, is very small. Just a slight variation in any one of these values would render life impossible:

• If gravity had been a little greater, all stars would have been red dwarfs, which are too cold to support life-bearing planets. If it had been a little smaller, the universe would have been composed exclusively of blue giants which burn too briefly for life to develop.
• Changes in the strength of either gravity or electromagnetism by only one part in 1040 would have spelled disaster for stars like the Sun.
• If the nuclear strong force were increased by 1%, almost all carbon would be burned into oxygen; an increase of 2% would prevent the formation of protons, yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5% would have given us a universe composed only of hydrogen, without any stars.
• Had the nuclear weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned into helium (making water impossible, for example). If it had been appreciably stronger, then the Big Bang would have proceeded past helium to iron, making stars impossible.
• The ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism makes it possible for helium and beryllium to have a resonant frequency of exactly the same value as that of an excited state of carbon, allowing the helium and beryllium to bind together to form carbon in the centre of stars. Without carbon there would have been no life.
• The spectral energy range of starlight is very close to the molecular binding energies of organic molecules. If it was to greatly to exceed this range, living organisms would be sterilized or destroyed; but if it was far below this range, then the photochemical reactions necessary to life would proceed too slowly for life to exist.
• The length of time that our Sun is able to continue to burn is constrained by both the strength of the gravitational force and by the ratio of the mass of the electron to that of the proton.
• A fine balance must exist between the gravitational and weak interactions. If the balance were upset in one direction, the universe would have been constituted by 100% helium in its early phase, which would have made it impossible for life to exist now. If the balance were tipped in the other direction, then it would not have been possible for neutrinos to blast the envelopes of supernovae into space and so distribute the heavy elements essential to life.
• The difference between the mass of the neutron and that of the proton is also part of a very delicate coincidence which is crucial to a life-supporting environment. This difference prevents protons from decaying into neutrons, which, if it happened, would make life impossible. If the neutron mass failed to exceed the proton mass by a little more than the value it does, then atoms would simply collapse.
• If the initial spread of matter in the universe had been a little less uniform then the non-uniformities would have condensed prematurely into black holes before stars could form, but if it had been a little more uniform, the inhomogeneities would have been insufficient to condense into galaxies.
• Intelligent life would be impossible except in a universe of three basic dimensions. For example, it is due to its basic three-dimensionality that the world possesses the chemistry that it does, which furnishes some key conditions necessary for the existence of life. In addition, the brain can only form in a 3D world. In 2D, neurons forming links to other neurons in the brain would be unable to cross over each other in order to reach all possible target neurons. In 4D, there would be too much "space", meaning that those same neurons would find it almost impossible to seek out and find any other neuron.
• Water, on which life obviously depends, is one of the strangest substances known to science. It is such a simple molecule, consisting of just two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, and yet:
• • It has one of the largest temperature ranges over which it exists in a liquid form. This has allowed there to be sufficient liquid water on the Earth for life to be able to continue throughout the many climatic changes that the planet has undergone in its history.
  • If the H-O-H bond angle was very different from what it is, ice would not be able to form an open structure with very little strain on the bonds. As a result, ice is less dense than water - in fact, it is the only substance to be less dense in its solid form than in its liquid form. If ice was more dense than water, all icebergs would sink to the bottom of the ocean and, because heat rises, the water immediately above the ice would cool and freeze, and, eventually, all of the Earth's oceans would freeze from the bottom upwards. As it is, the ice form a protective layer on the surface of the liquid ocean, enabling sea creatures to continue living below while the ice is frozen above.
  • Water also has a higher specific heat than almost any organic compound. This property allows water to be a store of heat and so stabilize the environment (otherwise the land would repeatedly bake and freeze).
  • The thermal conductivity of water is also higher than that of most liquids, which again permits water to act as a temperature stabilizer on the environment (otherwise oceanic hot- and cold-spots would cause extremes of temperature).
  • Water has a higher heat of vaporization than any known substance. This makes water the best possible coolant by evaporation, and living creatures use this to control their temperatures.
  • Water's high surface tension, exceeded by very few substances, serves to make biochemical reactions more rapid, by allowing the water to "stick" to the molecules involved in the reactions and dissolve them.

If all this fine tuning implies design, then there must be a designer. The universe has such a high degree of co-ordination and the values are so critical that such a universe could not have come about by chance.

Ardent atheists say that there is an error in this thinking: they say that, if something has a probability, however small, then it can come about, and therefore the universe exists simply because it can.

The proponents of Intelligent Design, on the other hand, say that if the probability of the universe existing is almost impossible then, ipso facto, the probability of it existing because it has been designed is almost inevitable.

Again, this does not convince the ardent atheists. They say that the basic features of the universe must be of a type that allows the evolution of observers, otherwise no-one would be asking the reason for these features in the first place. Thus, if being in a universe that is fine-tuned for life is a precondition for life to exist, then it is absurd for us to be surprised that we are living in a universe that is fine-tuned for life.

Is there anything wrong with that argument? No, there isn't: we are NOT surprised that we are living in a universe that is fine-tuned for life. It isn't the living that's surprising, it's the fine-tuning that's the surprising thing. It's that which suggests there is an intelligent design behind the universe. The fact is that we should be surprised that we observe those features of the universe which are excessively improbable and yet are necessary conditions of our own existence.

There is a great hope that a unified "theory of everything" will show why certain constants have the values that they do.

The uniqueness of planet Earth

The anthropic principle is supposed to limit the Copernican principle - "Our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers." The Earth itself is quite unique:

• Our Solar System has a large planet in its outer regions (Jupiter) which mops up many of the stray meteors, comets and asteroids which might otherwise impact the Earth and cause mass extinctions of life.
• We have a Moon that is so large and so close to us that it is able to moderate any excessively large shifts in the tilt of the Earth's axis. Without this, the planet's climate would fluctuate dramatically, making it very difficult for most living creatures to survive.
• The Sun is 400 times further away from the Earth than the Moon is. Amazingly, the Sun is also 400 times the diameter of the Moon! This means that the Earth is the only planet in the solar system to get beautiful total eclipses of the Sun. These eclipses are not only beautiful but have also enabled scientists to study the physics of the Sun. This knowledge has enabled them to know more about nuclear fusion. Without this knowledge, we may not be able to develop alternative sources of power that we will need in the future. Without these alternative sources of power, the human race may not be able to survive in its present form!
• The Earth lies in a zone of the Solar System where the temperatures are such that water exists mainly in a liquid form. This means:
  • It had a medium in which life could get started.
  • It has rain, which enables excess CO₂ in the atmosphere to be mopped up and stored in rocks as carbonates. Without this, we could have a runaway greenhouse effect, as Venus does.
  • It has plate tectonics (since the plates need water as a lubricant in order to move around). This enables those same carbonate rocks to be buried under the Earth's crust and to be recycled in volcanic eruptions. Without this, there would be no CO₂ left in the atmosphere at all, and plants would not be able to photosynthesise it.

Parallel universes

But, you may say, if there are many other planets on which life is not possible, then why not many universes in which life is not possible?

Opponents of Intelligent Design hypothesise an ensemble of "parallel universes", that is to say, the hypothesis that our observable universe is but one member of a collection of diverse universes that go to make up a wider Universe-as-a-Whole.

If our present universe were one instance in a population of universes, then the mere fact that ours is fine-tuned for life would not in itself be surprising, nor would it call for an explanation; for if the population of universes were infinite, then we should expect infinitely many to be fine-tuned for life, and it would be absurd for us then to seek an explanation for our particular universe being fine-tuned; or, if there were physical reasons for there to be a preponderance of universes fine-tuned for life, then again we should not be surprised. For instance, one physicist has pointed out that the physical conditions that make life possible also make black holes probable, and these might be giving birth to "baby universes", which in turn inherit the properties of the parent universe. Others have hypothesised that a new universe splits off from our universe every time a random quantum fluctuation occurs at the sub-atomic level. However, there is no hint as to what causal mechanism would produce such 'baby universes' or such a splitting-off of parallel universes.

The fundamental assumption behind these philosophers' reasoning seems to be something along the lines that, if the Universe-as-a-Whole contains an exhaustively random and infinite number of universes, then anything that can occur will occur somewhere. This means that anything is possible! For example, there is a universe somewhere in which Father Christmas not only exists but lives in my house along with Elvis Presley, Shergar and a lump of green lard that I like to call George!

Physicist Heinz Pagels says of this multi-universe hypothesis:

"How can such a sterile idea reproduce itself so prolifically? It may be because scientists are reluctant to make a leap of faith and say: 'The reason the universe seems tailor-made for our existence is that it was tailor-made'. aced with questions that do not neatly fit into the framework of science, they are loath to resort to religious explanations; yet their curiosity will not let them leave matters unaddressed. Hence, the anthropic principle. It is the closest that some atheists can get to God."

Similarly, physicist Tony Rothman writes,

"It's not a big step from the anthropic principle to the argument from design. When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Consider instead how remarkable it is that the collection of possible universes actually even contains such a thing as a possible universe that is fine-tuned for life. In other words, not only is it surprising that this individual universe can sustain life, it is even surprising that it is possible for there to be any universe at all that can sustain life.

It all goes to show that, even if scientists could prove that God exists, there would still be people who refused to believe it.

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'." (Ps. 14:1)

Next page: Other aspects of the interaction between science and religion >>