At Reasons.org: Is the Universe the Way It Is Because It’s the Only Way It Could Be?

_{Caspian
December 6, 2022

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design

4}_{Categories
Fine tuning
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Question of the week: How do you respond to the argument against fine-tuning as evidence for God by those who say the universe and its laws of physics are the way they are because that’s the only way they could be?

My answer: As I have documented in my books, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, there are hundreds of independent features of the universe, its laws of physics, and its space-time dimensions that must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of humans, or their equivalent, possible in the universe. However, that pervasive fine-tuning is not the only way the universe and the laws of physics could be.

From a biblical perspective, the angelic realm has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Similarly, the future home of Christians, the new creation (see Revelation 21–22) has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Readers can see our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, for the scientific physical evidence for angels and the angelic realm.

As I explain in my books on fine-tuning, the universe can be fine-tuned in a different way to allow for the existence of certain kinds of bacteria but not allow for the existence of animals and humans. I also show how the laws of physics can remain unchanged but the universe structured so that no physical life is possible anywhere, anytime in the universe.
As I demonstrate in Designed to the Core, it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.

Unlike the universe, the observed sample size of the universe’s subcomponents is not one. For example, there are a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. So far, however, astronomers have detected only one star, our Sun, that possesses the fine-tuned history and features that make it possible for the existence of humans on a planet orbiting it. The Sun is not the only way stars can be. The same argument can be made for our Laniakea Supergalaxy Cluster, our Virgo Cluster of galaxies, our Local Group of galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy, our local spiral arm, our Local Bubble, our planetary system, our planet, and our moon. The fine-tuning of the universe and all its subcomponents also vary according to the intended purposes for humans. As I show in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, the fine-tuning that allows billions of humans on one planet to be redeemed from their sin and evil within a time span of several tens of thousands of years is orders of magnitude more constrained than the fine-tuning that allows for the existence of a tiny population of technology-free humans with lifespans briefer than 30 years.
Reasons.org

Dr. Ross refers to scientific observations that show evidence of fine-tuning, not just for the existence of life, but to sustain life as we know it on Earth, with millions of species of plant and animal life, and a multi-billion population of humans with a technologically advanced global civilization. Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.

Comments

Origenes at 11, This was not an interview but an interrogation. In this case, the interrogator wanted his 'guest' to tell him what he wanted to hear. To 'expose' Intelligent Design as a solely religious project. And in so doing, get his followers to believe it has no scientific merit. That is wrong. It's very wrong to mislead people.relatd_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PST}

O: I sense that you share a concern that a Christian outlook hampers objectivity in science.
Nope. Extensive evidence suggests otherwise. But that is not what we see here at UD. Here, we see Christian fundamentalists (ie, KF, BA77, Relatd, etc) demonize and vilify anyone who has a view that differs from their personal religious views and label the opposition as atheists, materialists, nihilists, perverts, Democrats, progressives, pedophiles, groomers, anarchists, trolls, and any number of isms, in an attempt to justify dismissing their arguments.Sir Giles_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PST}

S.Meyer:
Abrams explained as how he thought that intelligent design was “dishonest.” In his opinion, it was a stealth form of creationism that refused to mention God in order to conceal a religious agenda. He also alleged that the theory wasn’t scientific. Not only had advocates of the theory “provided no new evidence”; there were no “peer-reviewed studies” in support of it, or so he claimed. After getting the other guest on the program, my old nemesis Eugenie Scott (see Chapter 6), to confirm this (falsely, as it happens), Abrams initiated a line of questioning to establish that intelligent design was “religion.” To do this, he tried to get me to say that I thought the designing intelligence responsible for life was God. But Abrams was setting a trap, one that, by this time, I knew all too well. If I answered truthfully (which I did) and told him that neither the evidence from biology nor the theory of intelligent design could prove the identity of the designer, he would accuse me of dishonesty and “refusing to come clean” about the religious nature of the theory (which he also did). If, on the other hand, I told him—again truthfully—that I personally thought that God had designed the universe and life, he would seize upon my words as proof that the theory of intelligent design was “religion,” thus establishing in his mind that it must lack any scientific basis. “Just admit it, it’s religion,” he kept demanding. As a Christian, I’ve never made any secret about my belief in God or even why I think theism makes more sense of the totality of human experience than any other worldview. But I was on Mr. Abrams’s show to discuss the theory of intelligent design, and the theory does not make claims about a deity, nor can it. It makes a more modest claim based upon our uniform experience about the kind of cause—namely, an intelligent cause—that was responsible for the origin of biological form and information. Of course, that modest claim raises a separate question, indeed, an important religious or philosophical question, namely, the very question about identity of the designing intelligence that Abrams was pressing me to answer. Clearly, his question was legitimate. But I wanted to answer it after I had explained what the theory of intelligent design is and after I had established that there is scientific evidence for it. Otherwise, I knew the minute I said that I personally thought that God was the designer, he would dismiss the case for intelligent design as “religion” because he, and perhaps many of his viewers, assume that if an idea is religious it has no basis in fact or evidence. And so a little tug-of-war ensued. To get me to either “admit it” or look evasive, Abrams asked two different questions in rapid succession: “What is intelligent design?” and “Who is the intelligent designer?” As I tried to answer his first question by defining intelligent design and describing some of the evidence that supports it, he kept demanding that I admit the designer is God. He was playing the journalist on the scent of a scandal, and the scandal he wanted to reveal was my belief in God. If I “admitted” that I thought God had designed the universe, then that would invalidate my position by showing intelligent design to be “religion.” And so he peppered me with a series of questions: “Is it religion or not?” “You just can’t…It’s religion.” “Is it religion or not?” “Just admit it. It’s religion.”
Origenes_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PST}

Chuckdarwin
Unfortunately, the ID side, including the Discovery Institute, has gone out of its way to discredit the Theistic Evolution position.
So, for ID folks scientific arguments are more important than the fact that theistic evolutionists are (allegedly) fellow Christians. This "unfortunately" shows their Christian bias how exactly? - - - - BTW how about my question in #3 ?Origenes_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PST}

CD at 7, Panspermia? Seriously? And where did that material come from? It appears you want nothing but atheism. A comment about that book on Theistic Evolution is appropriate: “This book offers a much-needed, comprehensive critique of evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution), covering its scientific, philosophical, theological, and biblical deficiencies. It devotes much space in particular to the scientific side. This focus is needed because of the common, unwarranted assumption that Darwinism is doing well as measured by scientific evidence. Several articles, from different angles, show how much Darwinism depends on seeing all biological evidence through the lens of a prior commitment to faith in the philosophy of naturalism, particularly the ungrounded assumption that unguided natural forces must suffice as a complete account of origins.” Vern S. Poythress, Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Biblical Interpretation, and Systematic Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary'relatd_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PST}

PM1 at 6, I honestly don't know what Kenneth Miller believes. From the document, Communion and Stewardship: '64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God." From part 69. "... But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).' This is the whole, complete answer. Here, it appears some want evolution to happen independent of any outside control. Some allow for God's limited involvement. God started a process like winding up a toy, putting it on the ground and it went wherever it went. God walked away after this. Intelligent Design, as science, identifies design in living things, codes and switches that regulate function. As science, it cannot identify the designer. However, the average person, upon learning that he was designed as opposed to an accident, will attach the science to his theology. One poster here remarked that Buddhism is so loose in structure that you could believe almost anything and still call yourself a Buddhist. Some Hippies promoted Buddhism. In the early 1970s, I walked into a bookstore on the edge of my college campus. One wall was covered, from floor to ceiling, with books about Eastern beliefs. As long as it wasn't Christian, it was promoted. By the way, who put those books there? At the time, listening to your priest or parents was discouraged. The Hippies had lots of illegal, and dangerous, drugs to sell you. Drop acid referred to taking LSD, a very dangerous hallucinogen. Kids were told the falsehood that it would "expand your mind."relatd_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PST}

PM1 You point is well taken. Unfortunately, the ID side, including the Discovery Institute, has gone out of its way to discredit the Theistic Evolution position. For example, few months back they ran a number of articles in Evolution News which were extremely critical (and nasty) directed at Francis Collins and Darrel Falk of BioLogos. Prior to that they published a book entitled Theistic Evolution that was equally critical of TE, followed by a number of podcasts with the same theme. To the ID contingent, it is a zero-sum game. I have found the claim that "even atheists" can subscribe to ID disingenuous at best. ID folks, having (more or less) rejected panspermia or a similar explanation for the origin of life, I don't see the viability of an "atheistic" intelligent design model. I may be missing something, but it seems inconsistent to me......chuckdarwin_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PST}

@5
What is a Theistic Evolutionist?
The view that God created by guiding mutation and selection. Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, Francisco Ayala, etc. I used to classify BioLogos as theistic evolution but apparently they prefer the term "evolutionary creation"
What are these “lots of positions”?
Apart from reductive materialism at one extreme and intelligent design + dualism or idealism at the other, there's non-reductive materialism, Indigenous spirituality, polytheism, lots of non-Western philosophies (Buddhism being of particular interest to me), panpsychism, emergentism, pantheism, panentheism, and theistic naturalism. (And doubtless more I'm forgetting right now.)PyrrhoManiac1_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PST}

PM1 at 4, What is a Theistic Evolutionist? What are these "lots of positions"?relatd_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PST}

@3
I sense that you share a concern that a Christian outlook hampers objectivity in science. Do you have a similar concern about scientists with an atheistic outlook, if not, why not?
I think their point was that Uncommon Descent used to present ID as a theologically neutral theory, just pure evidence and no metaphysical bias one way or the other, but now it seems as if promoting Christianity is much more central to the ID movement. At any rate, there certainly was a time when the party line at UD was that both evolutionary theory and design theory are theologically neutral, both compatible with atheism and with theism, and that the choice between evolutionary theory and design theory was strictly scientific, with no theological or metaphysical stakes either way. But lately it's come to seem as if evolutionary theory entails atheism, and intelligent design entails theism of some sort, and that the main reason why evolutionary theorists are against intelligent design is because they don't want theism to be true. The quality of discourse at UD would be much elevated if there were more theistic evolutionists here. With all the advocates of evolution being atheist and agnostic, and all the advocates of ID being theists (and I surmise all Christians, though I haven't asked), it's easy to get the sense of a polar opposition between two "camps". Whereas in fact there are lots of positions that just aren't represented at UD right now.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PST}

Chuckdarwin, Sir Giles I sense that you share a concern that a Christian outlook hampers objectivity in science. Do you have a similar concern about scientists with an atheistic outlook, if not, why not?Origenes_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PST}

CD: What exactly is this “brief connection” between “design parameters and a biblically-based theology?
Creationism ==> Scientific Creationism ==> Intelligent Design. The evolution of theology.Sir Giles_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST}

Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.
Bad theology? What in the world does theology have to do with ID? Isn't that the mantra? ID is pure science, unadulterated by theology, right? What exactly is this "brief connection" between "design parameters and a biblically-based theology?" Is it causal? Does the intelligent designer really hold our tiny corner of the universe in the palm of his hand? Angels--for crying out loud--live in a different "dimensional realm" and have different laws of physics? There are a "trillion trillion" stars in the universe, the vast majority which we cannot see, yet we've already ruled out other life? The more I read and hear about the whole ID notion, including its explicit (and increasing) ties to Christian theology, I am reminded of a famous passage from Jean Paul Sartre's Nausea: "The word Absurdity is now born beneath my pen...."chuckdarwin_{December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply