In Taking Leave of Darwin (2021), longtime rationalist skeptic Neil Thomas observes, regarding Bertrand Russell’s and others’ dismissal of fine-tuning of the universe and Earth for life:
However courageous one may find such sermons, whether from Dawkins or Russell or Nietzsche, they could be said to have acquired a kind of sepia-tinted datedness about them. In the last half century, advances in the world of cosmology have revealed that our planet turns out to be biofriendly to a well-nigh miraculous degree — a verdant oasis fine tuned in a dizzying number of ways for life, in contradistinction to the little less than Hadean depths found in possibly the entire remainder of the observable universe. Through the lens of a celestial telescope, it is true, one can see little but the unfeeling immensity of that unremittingly hostile universe invoked by Russell, but if we look around us here on Earth we can see a planet which seems entirely discontinuous with the rest of the observable cosmos and abounding in a host of benign phenomena so numerous that they tend to go largely unnoticed.
Russell’s assumption of material forces churning away mindlessly over the eons and at length spewing out the unplanned anomaly of human life — “a curious accident in a [cosmic] backwater,” he once termed it — was first formally challenged by astrophysicist Brandon Carter in 1973. Carter put forward what he termed “the anthropic principle” (from the Greek anthropos, man). According to Carter’s detailed calculations, the fact that our planet is habitable, and exists in a universe that could generate and host a habitable planet such as Earth, obtains thanks only to numerous finely tuned conditions, many of them stretching back to the first nanosecond of the Big Bang. Many of the ways that Earth appears fine tuned for life had been noted previously, but Carter made an advance in formalizing planetary and cosmological fine tuning, and he jump-started a wider conversation in the community of physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists about possible explanations for this fine tuning.
Already in the 1960s scientists had begun to notice a strange connection among a number of otherwise unexplained coincidences in physics. It emerged that many of these mysterious values could be explained by one overarching fact: the values had been necessary for the origin and preservation of human and other life. Some of the fundamental constants referred to include the particular strengths of the electromagnetic force and the force of gravity, which appear to be calibrated with extraordinary precision (to a dizzying number of decimal points) for human needs. The Earth, too, caters to human needs in a host of ways unknown to scientists of a century or more ago.
Neil Thomas, “Cosmos, Chaos, and a Privileged Address in the Universe” at Evolution News and Science Today (August 26, 2021)
Most efforts to dismiss the significance of fine-tuning seem like special pleading. We don’t know why but we do know what — and why it matters.
You may also wish to read: New class of “Hycean” exoplanets may feature life. The new James Webb Telescope will enable much clearer resolution for the composition believed necessary for hosting life. Exoplanets that have been overlooked because they are un-Earthlike may feature oceans that extremophiles could live in, Cambridge astronomers say.
First it worth complimenting Neil Thomas on his writing style. Reading his article was very much like listening to someone who is very talented on playing the guitar. it was very pleasing to read Neil Thomas’s wording and phrasing with which he chose to express himself. His pleasing writing style, combined with his depth, and wide ranging, knowledge on the subject, is a fairly rare thing to find in science writing now-a-days. With most science writers today tending towards being fairly dry and boring in their writing style., (myself included in so far as I can even be considered a science writer)
But as pleasing as Thomas’s writing style is, and as wide ranging as Neil Thomas’s knowledge is, one ‘non-trivial’ fact seems to have escaped Neil Thomas’s notice.
In his excerpt Neil Thomas states that,
But advances in science have not only “relativized” the Copernican principle to make it effectively useless as a heuristic, i.e. guiding principle, in science, but have now also overturned it and shown that it is a false assumption.
Primarily, the Copernican principle (and/or the Principle of Mediocrity), erroneously holds that “humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.”
And yet, despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians today, presently hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, (and therefore concede the necessary premise of the Principle of Mediocrity to atheists), the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principal is now shown, via our most powerful theories in science, to be a false assumption.
In establishing this fact, first it is important to realize that Copernicus never actually did experimentally prove that the geocentric model was an incorrect description of the universe, and that his heliocentric model of the universe was a ‘more accurate’ description of the universe.
Simply put, just because the earth is not to be considered central in the solar system itself, that does not automatically mean that the Earth cannot be considered central in the universe as a whole. The sun itself, contrary to what Nicolaus Copernicus held to be true in his heliocentric model, is certainly not to be considered central in the universe.
Shoot, the sun itself is not even to be considered the ‘true center’ of the solar system, (much less is it to be considered the ‘true center’ of our galaxy, and even much less than that is it to be considered the ‘true center’ of the universe as a whole).
General Relativity itself, one of the powerful theories ever in the history of science, makes this point clear.
As the late Stephen Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’
And as George Ellis, (a former close colleague of Hawking), stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”
And as Fred Hoyle, who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis, himself stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
And even as the man himself, Albert Einstein, stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”
There simply is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, nor any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe.
As Einstein himself noted,
In fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
In fact, according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, even individual people can be considered central in the universe,,,
And to support the claim that even individual people can be considered central in the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, I note the often overlooked fact that when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
We will get back to observers being central in the universe in a little bit, but before we do that, and to more firmly establish that the earth, (and solar system itself) should be given a ‘privileged’ position in the universe, it is first necessary to point out that anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), (anomalies that were recently discovered by the WMAP and Planck telescopes), ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system,
Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR, that ‘unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system, in an easy to understand manner.
Moreover, as the following paper highlights, we find that Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, “implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon”,,,
And it is these large scale structures of the universe, combined on top of the CMBR anomalies, which, amazingly, overturn the Copernican principle and strongly support the ‘medieval’ belief that the earth should be considered to have a ‘central’ position in the universe.
As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,
Moreover, due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57, we find that “These tiny temperature variations (in the CMBR) correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.”
Thus, (besides the CMBR and the large scale structure of the universe combining to give the earth an ‘surprising’ centrality in the universe, (and due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57 over the entire history of the universe), our best evidence from cosmology now reveals teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan), that specifically included the earth from the beginning of creation. The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluctuation as atheists have erroneously presumed within their ‘rapid inflation’ models.
On top of all that, and the further support the claim that ‘the universe had humans in mind all along’, in the following paper, Robin Collins found that photons coming from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are ‘such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.’
Of related interest to that fact, we also find that we just so happen to also, “Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History to be able to observe the Cosmic Background Radiation”
And to further solidify the fact that humans have far more significance in this universe than atheists have falsely presupposed, (with their erroneous presumption of the Copernican principle), in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.
And while that finding by Dr. Neil Turok is certainly very interesting, that finding is a bit disappointing in that is just gives life in general a ‘middle’ position in the universe, and still does not give humanity in particular, a ‘middle’ position in the universe.
Yet, Dr. William Demski, (and company), in the following graph, have refined that estimate of a ‘geometric mean’ with better data, and have given us a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.
And that more precise figure for a ‘geometric mean’ does indeed give humanity in particular a ‘central’ position in the universe.
Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.
Now let’s get back to observers themselves being central in the universe.
Whereas Einstein, when he first formulated both Special and General Relativity, gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe, In Quantum Mechanics we find that it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe.
As the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed ‘the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.’
Moreover, this recent experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
Because of such consistent and repeatable experiments like the preceding from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
On top of all that, and completely contrary to the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, in quantum mechanics we also find that humans, (via their free will), are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.
As the late Steven Weinberg, who was an atheist himself, stated in the following article, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within.
In fact Weinberg, who was an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within.
Yet, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
As well, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Thus regardless of how the late Steven Weinberg, and other atheists, may have preferred the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining ‘freedom of choice’ loophole in quantum mechanics, it is now empirically demonstrated that “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
As well, to state the glaringly obvious, this is yet another VERY powerful line of empirical evidence that directly falsifies the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.
In other words, since humans themselves are brought into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level, then humans are therefore, obviously, empirically shown to have far, far, more significance, value, and dignity in this universe than atheists have presumed.
As much as it may hurt an atheists’s feelings to know this, and as far as our best science can now tell us, we are not merely “chemical scum” as Hawking, via the Copernican Principle, tried to imply that we were.
Hopefully atheists will soon get over the sad fact that they are not merely chemical scum in short order. 🙂
One final note, although, as has been shown in this post, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have combined, (in a rather dramatic fashion), to overturn the Copernican Principle, and to return humanity back to centrality in the universe, never-the-less, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics still simply refuse, mathematically, to be combined into a single overarching ‘theory of everything.
And yet, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
Here is a recent video where I make precisely that case
And here are a few relevant notes from studies on the Shroud of Turin showing that both gravity and quantum mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
In the following video, Isabel Piczek, (a particle physicist who made a sculpture from the Shroud image), states,,, ‘The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.’
Kevin Moran, an optical engineer, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”
Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.
So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics then a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in science today, (of finding a bridge for the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
As William Dembski noted, (although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
I firmly believe that the Christian founders of modern science, (who very much viewed their practice of science as a way of worshiping God), would all be very pleased to learn that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides us with a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in modern science today, i.e. the solution to the quote unquote ‘theory of everything’.
Bornagain77/1
That’s right. It’s only human hubris that insists that the world revolves around us.
No, it hasn’t.
The Earth is just one of many bodies that comprise our Solar System. If our Sun is not central in the Universe then neither are we.
In other words, the Copernican Principle stands.
Thank you.
Bornagain77/2
There are currently around 7.9 billion people on Earth. Does this mean the Universe has 7.9 billion centers?
Bornagain77/4
If nothing exists until we look at it then what are we looking at in the first place?
Seversky, given that you just denied what I claimed without providing any scientific evidence for your counterclaims, I’ll let the scientific facts that I laid out stand on their own merit in regards to validating my claims.
Bornagain77/5
I wanted to ask you about Isabel Piczek. I see her referred to frequently in literature surrounding the Shroud as a particle or quantum or some other sort of physicist.
Yet, such biographical information as I can find indicates she was born and raised in Hungary and received training in the fine arts. She and her sister fled to the West to escape the communist takeover of their country and she built a distinguished career here as an ecclesiastical artist here.
But I can find no evidence that she ever trained as, conducted research as or published as a physicist of any sort. If anyone has any information about her scientific career perhaps they could point us to it.
Bornagain77/5
The “Agent Causality of God” is not excluded for some arbitrary reason, it is because there is no plausible reason to include it. It explains nothing in the scientific sense.
When you ask science for an explanation of the origins of life on Earth, you are asking biologists, chemists and physicist for a detailed, step-by-step naturalistic account of the processes by which life emerged from inanimate chemicals and diversified into the incredible complexity and variety of living things we see around us now.
How does “Agent Causality of God” tell us anything about that? The answer is, it doesn’t. It suggests who did it. It tells us nothing about how. Neither you nor any of your fellow-believers have any idea about how and are apparently not really curious about it either.
So perhaps you or William Dembski could tell us of what use the “Agent Causality of God” is to science?
Seversky denies the importance of the agent causality God in scientific explanation. But alas, Seversky, since he denies his own free will, denies that he himself is a causal agent.
But if Seversky is not a causal agent, who, or what, in blue blazes wrote Seversky post denying the importance of the agent causality of God? 🙂
Oh well, so much for Seversky ability to judge what is important in science and what is not.
seversky:
Total ignorant nonsense. There is plenty of evidence to include it. Our very existence demands it. There isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes did it. There isn’t even a way to test that claim.
Wrong. Those scientists claim to have such a mechanism. It is up to them to demonstrate it or shut up. We only ask they they support their nonsense.
Clearly seversky has never conducted an investigation. Saying something was intelligently designed tells us quite a bit. For one it eliminates blind and mindless processes as the cause. For another it adds intent and purpose.
The science of ID is in the detection and study of intelligent designs in nature. We don’t even ask about the who or how until AFTER intelligent design has been detected. And seeing that such a thing is WAY above our comprehension and understanding, we focus on what we can. And that is understanding how it works.
However, if nature produced life then those scientists seversky mentioned should be able to replicate it. They know all of the chemicals involved. Yet they can’t do it.
Yes and you get science fantasy stories what mighta/musta happened that sound a lot like magic.
So what do scientists attribute the causal appearance of space-time? The multiverse?
Ah, the Multiverse! The atheist’s thumb-suck that’s eternal, all powerful, undetectable, untestable, multidimensional, timeless, omnipresent, and prime mover of all universes with all the advantages of God without the pesky notion of personal responsibility!
-Q
Seversky
First of all, we want an explanation of the origins of life on Earth. We don’t “ask science”. Obviously, the researchers studying this don’t just ask science to give them answers. They look at the evidence and draw conclusions. The question is a search for explanatory causes. You’re claiming that the only path to true understanding this issue is through material causes – so you eliminate the possibility that God is the agent cause. But for what reason or evidence do you limit the possibility of an answer to materialism?
It does explain quite a lot if it eliminates a false-lead in the search for an answer. Eliminating material causes contributes an immense amount to science – preventing scientists from wasting, time, money and their skills on something that has been falsified. Alchemists tried to turn lead into gold – but that idea was falsified. Should we keep trying the experiments anyway?
As above, it tells us a lot about how because we eliminate one big possibility and therefore know it was not through a blind, material process. That information adds a lot to the research.
Strangely, you seem to be saying that even if Agent Causality of God was the true cause, we should pursue unintelligent materialist causes anyway.
#13: ET
“Saying something was intelligently designed tells us quite a bit. For one it eliminates blind and mindless processes as the cause. For another it adds intent and purpose.”
I’m curious (and have never had this question adequately answered beyond catechismal bromides) that if ID informs us as to “intent and purpose,” what exactly is/was the intelligent designer’s intent and purpose in designing and creating humans? Let’s set aside the how for now and simply focus on the “Agent Causality of God’s” intent and purpose.
Chuckdarwin @16,
But that’s precisely the point if ID, namely the presumption of intelligent design without any position on the designer, the designer’s goals, or the designer’s motivation.
This presumption has repeatedly been shown to be more beneficial to scientific advancement than the presumption of random junk, some of which might happen to be useful.
Hope this makes it clear.
-Q
CD
Just following a good point by Querius @ 17 …
To say that something was done “by design” means it was done for an intent and purpose.
The materialist claim is that everything emerged from blind purposeless causes with no intent for anything. So when we say that something was intelligently designed, we indicate that purpose and intent were present.
You’re going farther than ID science can go when you ask about what the intention of the designer was in creating human beings. It’s a philosophical thing we can infer – looking at the existence of rational beings who have inbuilt capabilities and instinct towards the moral good, truth and beauty. But that goes beyond ID detection as a scientific project. You also have to learn about the nature of God, as you understand that concept, etc.
Here’s what Kirk Durston thinks about “functional information” in biology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_j0E995D2s
If you’re interested, his education and peer-reviewed articles are listed here:
https://www.kirkdurston.com/kirk
-Q
chuck:
For starters, according to “the Privileged Planet” this universe was intelligently designed for scientific discovery. Humans are intelligent agencies capable of such a thing. A universe designed for scientific discovery requires explorers capable of figuring out what they observe.
Beyond that we have to figure it out. Would an intelligent designer take the effort to produce life, give it the just-so habitable planet and fine tuning, for no reason? Really?
And also from Privileged Planet, the earth is in the perfect position to observe and discover the universe so the creation of human beings with that capability means that discovery and learning and gaining knowledge are part of the purpose. Humans enjoy learning and growing in understanding – so the purpose is a good one. The greatness of the universe is surpassed by the greatness of the designer who made it – so learning that is what humans are intended to do.