The Case for Design Based on the Anthropic Coincidences

 The universe presented to our senses is obviously not a random jumble of data.  It is claimed by theists that the laws of physics are "fine-tuned" for the existence of life.  The fine-tuning argument rests on a series of scientific facts called the "anthropic coincidences," which refer to the initial conditions and physical constants of the universe.  Basically, Intelligent Design (ID) advocates point out that if the universe had appeared with slight variations in the values of its fundamental constants, that universe would not have produced the elements, such as carbon and oxygen, and other conditions necessary for life. 

• The initial conditions are the arrangements and properties of the stuff (matter, energy, space) of the universe that existed at its beginning.  An example would be the rate of expansion of the universe from the big bang.  If this rate were slightly faster, galaxies, stars, and planets would not form; if slightly slower, the universe would have collapsed before any atoms could be formed. 
  
  
• The physical constants are the strengths of the four forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces) and the masses of the particles that are described by the basic physical laws (bosons and fermions).  An example of a value of a physical constant is the electron to proton mass ratio, m_m/m_n ~(1836)^-1.  This small value is a necessary condition of there being DNA molecules.  Theists argue that the chance that any initially random set of constants would correspond to the set of values that happen to exist in our universe is very small; thus this seemingly precise balancing act is very unlikely to be the result of mindless chance.  If these anthropic coincidences are so improbable that they never could have occurred naturally, the universe must have been intelligently designed to support life. 

 Probability Estimates and Fine Tuning.

 Creationists and ID advocates argue that the odds could be a billion billion to one that the necessary circumstances just happened to coincide that makes life on earth possible.  However, that argument is meaningless in light of the fact that, since we are here, the odds are 100% that it can happen. Rarity of occurrence (or a low probability) by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything.  When one is dealt a bridge hand of 13 cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is close to 1 in 600 billion.  It would be nonsensical for a person to conclude that he must not have been dealt the very hand he holds because it is so improbable.  Further, it is flawed logic to reason that because of the improbability, the hand must have been arranged ahead of time by a planner, i.e., designer.   But this is the way ID advocates and creationists think when presented with these sorts of situations, e.g., when someone wins a lottery, it must have been planned that way.  Another example:  try estimating what the probability would be that the particular sperm and egg that formed you would unite, so that your parents, grandparents, and all your ancestors down to the primeval stew that formed the first living things would come together in the right combination to produce you.  Would that infinitesimally small number be the probability that you exist?  Of course not.  You exist with 100% probability. 

 The fine-tuning argument reaches conclusions based on the presumed statistical improbability of the known set of physical constants; however, we only have one universe to study and don't know how improbable the values of such constants really are.  After all, no one has ever seen a universe begin.  We don't even know if it had an absolute beginning.  Similarly, ID advocates, who have no actual knowledge of how applicable biological entities were formed, still come up with high probabilities against life forming by natural means.  We do not know what the initial protobiont was made of, how complex it was, nor how many possible protobionts there were that could have been manufactured chemically (in nature), yet all of these must be known before any calculation of the probability of life developing can be made.  Moreover, if scientists can't yet "make" life because we don't understand all of the factors necessary for life to exist, how can anyone calculate the probability of life beginning by natural means? 

 The point is that, if, based on our actual knowledge rather than speculation, we compute the probability that the universe exists with human life, the result is unity!  We have only one datum, our universe, and it has human life.  Of course, the fact that any probability estimates have to be based on a sample size of one (universe) puts the probability advocate in a position incompatible with establishing statistically-based estimates.  Our universe is a unique case and so analogies are pointless.  To estimate the relevant probabilities, we need information on other universes to compare and contrast with the attributes of objects in our universe, e.g., rocks, organisms, and watches.

<NEXT>

The Case for Design Based on the Anthropic Coincidences: Pages (1), 2, 3, 4, 5

Copyright © 2005 ASUSA