The Intelligent Design of the Universe

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

We live in an orderly universe which operates according to certain fundamental laws of physics. The current state of the universe results from a combination of the constants of these physical laws and the initial conditions of the universe, which include: the strong nuclear force, the electro-magnetic force constant, the cosmological constant, the gravitational force constant, the mass of the up quark, the mass of the down quark, the electron mass, the mass of neutrinos, the ratio of nuclear force to electromagnetic constant, the initial entropy of the universe, and the expansion rate of the universe. These constants and initial conditions are “contingent” properties, meaning that it would not violate the fundamental laws of physics or any necessary principle of mathematics or logic if they were different. There is no logical or physical reason why these constants and initial conditions have to be what they are.

What physicists have discovered is that if any of these values were slightly different, then life (including human beings) could not exist in the universe. For example, if the strong nuclear force or the electro-magnetic force constant were just 4% different from their current values, then the existence of carbon (and thus life) would be impossible.^[1]Stephen C. Meyer,. Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (New York: HarperOne, 2021), page 138. The values of the mass of the up quark and the down quark must be fine tuned to 1 part in 10²¹ in order for life to exist.^[2]Meyer, 137. The gravitational force constant must be fine tuned to 1 part in 10³⁵.^[3]Meyer, 138. The ration of the weak nuclear force constant and the strong nuclear force constant must be fine tuned to 1 part in 10,000.^[4]Meyer, 142. The ratio of the electro-magnetic force to the force of gravity must be fine tuned to 1 part in 10⁴⁰.^[5]Meyer, 142. 

These are just some examples of how the possibility of life in the universe is the result of an extremely improbable confluence of various contingent properties of the universe. It appears that the universe was fine-tuned so that human beings could exist. This is known as the fine-tuning problem or the Anthropic Principle. Commenting on this, even atheist physicist George Greenstein acknowledged, “the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. . . Was it a God who providentially stepped in and crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”^[6]George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos (New York: Morrow, 1988), page 27.

Some atheists have objected to the idea that the Anthropic Principle points to the Intelligent Design of the universe. They claim that we do not need to explain the fine-tuning of the universe because, if it were not fine-tuned for human existence, we would not be here to see it. Human beings observe a universe fine-tuned for human existence because only such a universe could be observed by human beings, and that, they argue, is sufficient explanation for the Anthropic Principle.

This objection, however, is fallacious. There still needs to be an explanation for why the universe is this way, not just the fact that we are observing it. A good analogy for this is a condemned man who survives a firing squad of 100 expert marksmen without being hit. The extreme improbability of this happening by chance would lead anyone to conclude that the marksmen must have deliberately missed by design. The man cannot explain why the marksmen missed by just saying, “I am still alive to observe that they missed, so that provides an explanation for why they missed.”

Another attempt by atheists to avoid the theistic implications of the Anthropic Principle is by positing the multiverse hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, there are an infinite number of universes, each with its own different constants of physician laws. So, although it might be extremely improbable for a universe to be fine-tuned for life to exist, within an infinite multiverse there must be some universes in which such an improbable state of affairs exists, and our universe is one of them.

The problem with this multiverse hypothesis is that there is no evidence at all for it; it is entirely speculative. According to the principle of “Ockham’s razor,” entities should not be multiplied needlessly in order to explain something. Clearly, positing an infinite number of invisible universes is far less reasonable than positing one Intelligent Designer. Some atheists might object to this that we already know that a material universe exists, while positing the existence of an immaterial Being is inherently unreasonable. But recall that in a previous post I established that the existence of immaterial minds is actually more certain than the existence of physical objects. So, it is perfectly reasonable to posit an Intelligent Designer as the explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.

The Origin and Evolution of Life

Prior to the modern period, it was widely believed that small life forms were relatively simple and that living things could spontaneously generate from non-living matter. In the modern period, however, scientists debunked the idea of spontaneous generation and demonstrated that living things can only come from other living things. Furthermore, modern biologists discovered that even the most basic single-celled life forms require DNA in order to exist, and that DNA is, to say the least, extremely complex. The DNA of a cell contains functionally specified information for assembling proteins necessary for a life form to function. It is like an advanced supercomputer functioning at the microscopic level. 

If even the most basic single-celled life form is so complex, then this raises the question of how life began to exist in the first place. In the 1950s, the famous Miller-Urey experiment purportedly showed that organic molecules could have randomly formed in the atmosphere of the early earth. However, even if this experiment had correctly modeled the atmosphere of the early earth (which it did not), it did nothing to explain how amino acids, let alone proteins, let alone DNA could have randomly formed in the early earth. The probability of a single functional protein assembling by random chance in the atmosphere of the early earth is the unimaginably small chance of 1 in 10¹⁶⁴. To give an idea of how small that number is, in the entire universe, there are only 10⁸⁰ elementary particles!^[7]Meyer, 175.

Given this, how could extremely complex DNA molecules get produced by random chance? We know that DNA molecules do not self-organize, and they certainly do not self-organize with the complex information required to build actual functional proteins that are required for a life form to function. As an explanation, some scientists have proposed the “RNA world” hypothesis, according to which there was first prebiotic natural selection among self-copying RNA molecules, which later developed into DNA molecules. However, experiments that have attempted to support this hypothesis have required extensive intentional manipulation of the molecules by scientists, rather than actual realistic conditions. Furthermore, self-replication of RNA molecules requires specific information contained in the sequences of the molecules, and these experiments begin with this information, rather than explaining its origin.^[8]Meyer, 180-181, 309. The RNA world hypothesis thus fails to provide a reasonable explanation for the origin of DNA and life.

Most atheist scientists acknowledge that the origin of life on earth is an unexplained mystery. Some, such as Richard Dawkins, have, in all seriousness, hypothesized that the origin of life on earth was outer space aliens who evolved on another planet in the distant past and then brought life to earth. This is essentially an acknowledgement that only intelligent design can provide an explanation for the origin of life on earth. The problem is that we have no evidence that there is another planet somewhere in the universe where life could randomly come into existence by chance, much less that there are actually outer space aliens. In contrast, there is good evidence, such as the evidence of miraculous events, that God exists. Thus, a theistic Intelligent Design Theory is more reasonable than an outer space alien intelligent design theory.

Even if they acknowledge that the origin of life remains a mystery, the vast majority of atheists will claim that the evolution of life into various species is fully explained by the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. However, this is not the case. First, the fossil record does not show a gradual branching of life forms evolving into other life forms. Instead, the fossil record shows the quite abrupt appearance of new animal groups. Second, the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, according to which random mutations and natural selection cause life forms to evolve, can only explain moderate evolutionary changes; it cannot explain the origin of completely new and complex anatomical features and structures.

The problem with the idea of completely random mutations producing new, complex anatomical features and structures is that the vast majority of possible DNA sequences are nonfunctional. In order to be functional, a DNA sequence must generate a protein fold that performs a specific biological function. But for every DNA sequence that generates a small functional protein (of 150 amino acids), there are a staggering 10⁷⁷ combinations that do not. Now, throughout earth’s history, only about 10⁴⁰ organisms have lived on earth. This means that the chances of even one functional protein fold evolving through random mutations is 1 in 10³⁷!^[9]Meyer, 205-206. Clearly, random mutations and natural selection alone cannot explain the evolution of many, many new proteins throughout life’s history. This provides further evidence for Intelligent Design Theory.

Many atheists dismiss Intelligent Design Theory, claiming that it is a God-of-the-gaps argument that arbitrarily posits God as an explanation just because we do not know how to explain something. However, as atheist Bradley Monton points out in his book, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design,^[10]Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press, 2009). Intelligent Design Theory is not a God-of-the-gaps argument at all; it has scientific evidence to support it. DNA, which is required for the existence of the most basic life forms, contains information for building proteins, and we have overwhelming evidence that information only comes from an intelligent mind. Regularities of scientific laws do not produce information. The best hypothesis for explaining the origin and evolution of life, the hypothesis that is best supported by the scientific evidence, is Intelligent Design Theory.

Conclusion

Despite the strident claims by atheists that science has disproved the existence of God, the scientific evidence actually points in the opposite direction. Atheist scientists who dismiss Intelligent Design Theory do so not because of sound scientific arguments, but because of a philosophical assumption that everything in the universe must be explainable by physics and chemistry. Since the existence of immaterial minds is actually more certain than the existence of physical objects, this assumption is completely arbitrary. The scientific evidence points to the existence of a Supreme Mind who designed the laws of the universe and life on earth. This, of course, does not get us all the way to the Christian concept of God, but it does get us part of the way there.