1FeatureWS_6January2025_AddictiontoScreens
1CredoWS_20January2025_BeingCounter-Cultural
1PulseWS_20January2025_FleshMadeWord
1CredoWS_6January2025_TheChristianBusinessLeader
1PulseWS_6January2025_AnalyticalTheologyandItsDiscontents
ETHOSBannerChinese11
ETHOSBannerChinese
previous arrow
next arrow

Feature
3 June 2024

Richard Dawkins, the world-famous advocate for atheism from Oxford University, asserts that since nature is governed by blind physical forces and genetic replication, “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” However, the scientific evidence provided by Dawkins to support his sweeping assertion is inconclusive and contestable. Hence, many theistic scientists would beg to differ with Dawkins, not just because of their religious beliefs, but because modern physics and cosmology have identified intricate mechanisms or evidence of design underlying the structure of the universe which contradicts Dawkins’ unfounded assertion. In particular, the universe seems to be fine-tuned to support life.

Paul Davies, who has authored numerous books on cosmology observes that the universe is “biophilic”, meaning, friendly towards life. That is to say, it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that are required for the emergence of life. Indeed, scientists have identified with great precision the optimization or fine-tuning of 26 parameters or physical constants that must be in place before life can emerge. Further, these parameters must be exact to great orders of magnitude for this to happen.

Fundamental Physical Constants

Martin Rees, in his book, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, highlights six numbers or dimensionless constants that need to be fine-tuned in order to have a life-permitting universe. Let us consider four of First, the constant N, which is the ratio of the strength of gravity to that of electromagnetism. If the ratio were any smaller, there would have been only a short-lived miniature universe; there would not be sufficient time available for the biological evolution of higher orders of animals like reptiles and mammals.

Second, the constant ε (epsilon) determines how firmly atomic nuclei bind. It has a value of 0.007 and is the relative amount of hydrogen that converts to helium via fusion. If its value were 0.006, no elements would be formed. If its value were 0.008 there would be no hydrogen to fuel the stars and no energy to sustain life.

Third, the cosmological constant, λ (lambda) determines whether the universe will expand or collapse. To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10^120. If it were just slightly more Fourth, ω (omega), which is related to gravity and expansion energy in the universe. If the ratio were too high the universe would have collapsed long ago; if it were too low, no stars would have formed. In other words, the present universe exists because the value of omega is just right.

The physical constants are not to be taken in isolation; the ratios of the constants with one another must also be fine-tuned relative to each other. For example, the strong nuclear force is 10^60 times stronger than gravity. If gravity were strengthened by an order of 1/10^34, there would be no life-sustaining planets. Physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow both observe that “a slight change of 0.5 percent of the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force would destroy either all carbon or oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it.”

Initial or Boundary Conditions

The standard Big Bang theory of the beginning of the universe 13.8 billion years ago is the current dominant theory among cosmologists. But for the Big Bang to occur, the initial condition of the universe must be one of low entropy, that is, a highly ordered state. Roger Penrose in his book, The Road to Reality estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our Big Bang universe occurring by chance alone is on the order of 1 in 10^10^123. The magnitude of this number is beyond our ability to imagine, much less to comprehend.

Regional Galactic Fine-tuning

Our solar system is located at the edge of the outer spiral arm of our local galaxy. If the solar system were too near the galactic centre, planet Earth would be destroyed by intense radiation, or swallowed up by supernovae and blackholes. The near co-rotation circular orbit of the solar system with the galaxy enables the planets in the solar system to avoid crossing through the dangerous centre of the galaxy.

Local Fine-tuning

As we zoom in from the galaxy to the solar system, we meet the right conditions which make life possible. There is an optimal zone around some stars where a planet could experience temperatures like those on Earth. Astrobiologists call this zone “the Goldilocks zone”. Planets within this zone are neither “too hot” nor “too cold” and neither too big nor too small to sustain life forms as the planetary temperature would be just right for water to be present in the liquid phase so that life is possible.

The astrophysicist Hugh Ross has identified many unique conditions that make the earth hospitable. Some of these include:

    1. The right geological interior of the planet which generates both a protective magnetic field as well as the right earth crust which allows for optimal plate-tectonics.
    2. A large moon with a right planetary rotation period which stabilizes the earth’s tilt of 23.5 degrees. This ensures relatively moderate seasonal changes, and creates the only climate in the solar system mild enough to sustain complex living organisms.
    3. Just the right distance from the Sun. If the earth were just 5% closer to the Sun, the result would be similar to the greenhouse effect observed on Venus. This would render temperatures too hot for life. Conversely, if the earth were about 20% farther from the Sun, glaciation would render Earth sterile like Mars.
    4. The presence of large planets like Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus in the neighborhood with their strong gravity which pull away meteorites and comets that would otherwise collide with Earth and cause mass extinctions of life on Earth.

The fine-tuning of planet Earth which makes life possible is further confirmed by the absence of other planets comparable to Earth. In the words of Ross, planet Earth is the “improbable planet” in the cosmos that supports life.

To summarize, in the light of the immense odds, life could not have emerged through a random process of nature or by chance.  As far as we know, purposeful complex systems are not the product of chance. It requires intervention from an agency outside the processes of nature. As Fred Hoyle quipped, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” In other words, the precise values of the physical constants of nature and the serendipitous state (initial conditions) of the beginning of the universe all point to a cosmic designer who has fine-tuned the universe to make life possible.

Even an atheist like Stephen Hawkins acknowledges that the universe appears to be fine-tuned. He writes,

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty. 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.

 

Not surprisingly, many naturalistic scientists have resorted to developing mathematical models which allow for an infinite number of multiverses in order to deflect the challenge posed by the existence of a fine-tuned universe.  Such models could be based on the chaotic inflationary universe(s) theory that was first mooted by Alan Guth from MIT in 1984. Other scientists like Hugh Everett propose that the early universe may be likened to a quantum wave which splits endlessly into branches of parallel universes. Both chaotic inflationary universe and many-worlds interpretation of quantum cosmology envisage an infinite number of possible universes. The reasoning is that if there is an infinite number of universes, then even the most improbable life-friendly universe could emerge by chance.

However, the multiverse theory has been subjected to serious criticism. Sean Carroll and Heywood Tham have shown that the fraction of realistic cosmologies—cosmologies generating life-friendly universes—resulting from cosmic inflation is approximately 1 in 10^66,000,000, an unimaginably small fraction. Indeed, even so-called inflationary universes require fine-tuning to enable life-friendly universes.

Finally, for the sake of argument, let us grant that an inflationary universe could produce the right conditions for the emergence of life. The question arises, “How is it that there is a multiverse generator that could generate a universe fine-tuned for life?” Presumably, there is an agent responsible for this fine-tuned multiverse generator. This raises a further question, “What agent lies behind the multiverse generator of the multiverse generator ad infinitum?” This would lead us back to the classical cosmological argument which points to the existence of God.

Richard Swinburne, a philosopher at Oxford University, gives a forceful riposte to the multiverse theory. He writes, “It is the height of irrationality to postulate an infinite number of universes never causally connected with each other, merely to avoid the hypothesis of theism. Given that… a theory is simpler the fewer entities it postulates, it is far simpler to postulate one God than an infinite number of universes, each differing from each other.”

In the light of the strong evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe, theistic scientists are justified in rejecting Richard Dawkins’ bleak vision of a blind, pitiless universe. Indeed, Dawkins’ bleak vision can only extinguish the sense of wonder which is the mainspring of scientific inquiry. In contrast, the alternative vision of a fine-tuned universe would sustain the passion of scientific inquiry into the wonders of the universe.


Dr Ng Kam Weng is Research Director of Kairos Research Centre in Kuala Lumpur. Previously, he had been a fellow at the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies and a member of the Center for Theological Inquiry at Princeton University. From 1989 to 1992 he taught at the Malaysia Bible Seminary Graduate School. He has a PhD from Cambridge University.