Chapter 5
|
|
|
|
Chapter 5 EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN: THE COSMOS Is there evidence of design in non-living things?
I. Introduction. As it happens, to ask this question is to answer it resoundingly in the affirmative: there are a wealth of recent discoveries in the science of physics and astrophysics which are strongly suggestive of design in the cosmos, from the smallest structures to the largest. Physical matter, from the subatomic level all the way up to the total mass of the universe, appears to be specific to the fostering of complex life. The specifications necessary for complex life to exist are so numerous and exacting that the inference to design is quite strong - strong enough, at least, for many non-theistic physicists to acknowledge openly the apparent necessity of the design inference. Most Americans, I suppose, would be surprised to learn this. But just as mainstream media seldom report on the problems with the theory of evolution or the evidence for design in living things, neither has "the fine-tuning of the universe" been much publicized. It's not a secret to leading scientists. Stephen J. Hawking, acknowledged as one of the greatest physicists since Einstein (and not a traditional theist), describes the evidence in the following way: The laws of science . . . contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. . . . The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. . . . [The explosion of the stars was necessary for the production of the heavy elements.] [I]t 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. . . . . . . . . . . It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.1 One discovery in astrophysics which nearly everyone has heard of is the Big Bang. In 1929, Edwin Hubble (for whom the famous Hubble Space Telescope was named, of course) noticed that all the galaxies in the observable universe appeared to be moving away from us; the farther away they are, the faster they are moving; and they are all decelerating. This is a perfect description of an explosion. Despite being loaded with supernatural overtones, the Big Bang theory is, as Behe points out, "a scientific theory that flowed naturally from observational data, not from holy writings or transcendental visions."2 Einstein was among the many scientists who frankly acknowledged the theistic implications of Hubble's discovery. Though the idea of a beginning was not congenial to him, the evidence convinced him of "the necessity for a beginning" and to "the presence of a superior reasoning power."3 Big Bang theory has inspired many efforts to escape its theistic implications. One such attempt is the theory of a "steady state" universe, but that was soundly refuted by Hubble. Another is the "oscillating universe," in which Hubble's observations are accepted, but it is proposed that the universe will one day stop expanding, collapse on itself and explode again in an eternal cycle. Hugh Ross, in an outstanding contribution to J. P. Moreland's The Creation Hypothesis, has summarized the scientific findings which refute both the steady state and the oscillating universe theories. In Table 4.1, he describes the evidence pertaining to steady state theory: Table 4.1. Evidence Refuting Steady State Models. The paucity of galaxies and quasars (distant celestial objects that radiate far more light than typical galaxies) beyond a certain boundary implies that we are not living in an infinite steady state universe. A steady state universe lacks a physical mechanism (such as the primeval explosion) to drive the observed expansion of the universe. The observed microwave background radiation (perfectly explained by the cooling off of the primordial fireball) defies explanation in a steady state universe. The enormous entropy of the universe makes no sense in a steady state system. In a steady state universe, spontaneously generated matter must come into being with a specified ratio of helium to hydrogen, and that ratio must decrease with respect to time in an entirely ad hoc fashion. Instead, the measured helium abundance for the universe has exactly the value that a hot big bang would predict. The observed abundances of deuterium, light helium and lithium are predicted perfectly by some kind of big bang beginning, but cannot be explained in a steady state universe. Galaxies and quasars at distances so great that we are viewing them ftom the remote past appear to differ so substantially in character and distribution from nearby, more contemporary galaxies and quasars as to render steady state models completely implausible.4 Table 4.2. Evidence Against Oscillation Models. The observed density of the universe falls just short of what is needed to force a collapse. No known physical mechanism can bring about a bounce, a reversal of cosmic contraction. Any hypothesized compression becomes violently unstable near the end of the collapse. Even if the universe were to collapse, and even if there were some bounce mechanism, the huge entropy in the universe would severely limit the number of bounces.5 The design implications of Big Bang theory did not evaporate when it was accepted by science as the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe. But there is so very much more than the Big Bang theory that entails design implications. Just as to Darwin the cell was a "black box" which yielded its secrets only when we acquired the technical means to peer inside, so, too, we did not hear the cosmos itself whispering, "design," until we learned how to listen. Says Ross: Now that many of the limits and characteristics of the universe have come within the measuring capacity of astronomers and physicists, the indications of design in the universe are being examined and acknowledged. Astronomers have discovered that the characteristics of the universe, of our galaxy and of our solar system are so finely tuned to support life that the only reasonable explanation for this is the forethought of a personal, intelligent Creator whose involvement explains the degree of fine-tunedness. It requires power and purpose.6 Table 4.4. Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Universe. if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable to fission if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production if larger: insufficient chemical bonding if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding if larger: electromagnetism would have dominated gravity, preventing galaxy, star and planet formation if smaller: electromagnetism would have dominated gravity, preventing galaxy, star and planet formation if larger: no galaxy formation if smaller: universe would have collapsed prior to star formation if larger: no star condensation within the protogalaxies if smaller: no protogalaxy formation if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming if larger: stars would be too luminous if smaller: stars would not be luminous enough if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed if smoother: stars, star clusters and galaxies would not have formed if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life if larger: insufficient oxygen if smaller: insufficient carbon if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and hence no life chemistry possible if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes if greater: too much radiation for planets to form if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life's existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet if smaller: galaxies would not have formed if larger: universe would have collapsed before solar-type stars could form7 Ross' commentary on this evidence is worth repeating: The discovery of this degree of design in the universe is having a profound theological impact on astronomers. Fred Hoyle concluded in 1982 that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." Paul Davies moved from promoting atheism in 1983 to conceding in 1984 that "the laws [of physics] . . . seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design" to testifying in his 1988 book The Cosmic Blueprint that there "is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming." In 1988 George Greenstein expressed these thoughts: "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency or, rather, Agency must be involved." Words and phrases such as superintellect, monkeyed, exceedingly ingenious, supernatural Agency, Supreme Being and providentially crafted obviously can refer only to a person. But more than just establishing that the Creator is a person, the findings about design provide evidence of what that Person is like. One characteristic that stands out dramatically is his interest and care for living things and particularly for the human race. For example, the mass density of the universe determines how efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. As table 4.4 indicates, if the mass density were too great, too much deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron in the nucleus) would be made in the first few minutes of the universe's existence. This extra deuterium will cause all the stars to burn much too quickly and erratically for any of them to support a planet with life upon it. On the other hand, if the mass density were too small, so little deuterium and helium would be made in the first few minutes that the heavier elements necessary for life would never form in the stars. What this means is that the approximately 100 billion trillion stars we observe in the universe, no more and no fewer, are needed for life to be possible in the universe. Evidently God cared so much for living creatures that he constructed 100 billion trillion stars and carefully crafted them throughout the age of the universe so that at this brief moment in the history of the cosmos humans could exist and have a pleasant place to live. Of all the gods of the various religions of the world, only the God of the Bible is revealed as investing this much (and more) in humanity. It is not just the universe as a whole that bears evidence for design. The sun and the earth also reveal such evidence. Frank Drake, Carl Sagan and Iosef Shklovskii were among the first astronomers to make this point. They attempted to estimate the number of planets (in the universe) with environments favorable for life support. In the early 1960s they recognized that only a certain kind of star with a planet just the right distance from that star would provide the necessary conditions for life. On this basis they made optimistic estimates for the probability of finding life elsewhere in the universe. Shklovskii and Sagan, for example, claimed that 0.001 percent of all stars [or one in a hundred thousand] could have a planet capable of supporting advanced life. While their analysis was a step in the right direction, it overestimated the range of permissible star types and the range of permissible planetary distances. It also ignored many other significant factors. Some sample parameters sensitive for the support of life are listed in table 4.5.9 In Table 4.5, Ross presents the parameters of a planet, its moon, its star and its galaxy which must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist. Characteristics 2 and 3 have been repeated from table 4.4 since they apply to both the universe and the galaxy. Table 4.5. Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Galaxy-sun-earth-moon System for Life Support. if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe, and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation if too few: insufficient fluorine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed if too many: planetary orbits would be disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient fluorine production if too late: fluorine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits out of life-support zones if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements if less recent: stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; ultraviolet radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient if increases too soon: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great if less: surface temperature differences would be too great if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly if too old: planet would rotate too slowly if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe if weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great if greater: runaway glaciation would develop if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if greater: too many species would become extinct if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land if greater: too much fire destruction would occur if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere if greater: surface temperatures would be too low if less: surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much UV radiation at the surface if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe if greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed if less: nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited if smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited if too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal temperature differences would be too severe for advanced life if too nutrient-poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited if too nutrient-rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere and rotational period would be too severe if less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and continents to the oceans would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak10 [T]he thirty-two parameters listed in Table 4.5 . . . lead safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the observable universe contains less than a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars, we can see that not even one planet . . . would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life. No wonder Robert Rood and James Trefil, among others, have surmised that intelligent physical life exists only on the earth.11 Most of the earth teems with life. This circumstance has led many naturalistic scientists to suspect that matter has an inherent vital force which produces living material almost automatically. It has also led scientists to hope that life will be found on other planets. Recent discovery that planets are common in other star systems has encouraged this thinking. But the findings summarized above suggest that the probability is negligible that there are planets on which conditions are conducive to life. This is a separate problem for naturalism from the problem of information; for even if a living cell were somehow formed by accident, it must still occur in conditions in which it can survive and reproduce. We have now seen that just as the origin of life by accident is inconceivable, so is it inconceivable that it could flourish except under wholly contrived circumstances. ENDNOTES 1Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1998, 1996), pp. 129-131. © 2002 Thomas O. Alderman |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|