Why the Universe appears designed and why it doesn’t have to beAndrew Lang – Oral Roberts University – SciFoo 2009

What is the Universe?The Universe is by definition: Every physical thing that exists, including but not limited to, all matter, all energy, and all space.

Galaxies have 100,000,000,000,000+ stars

Visible Universe has 100,000,000,000,000+galaxies

The Universe is Expanding

The Church’s Reaction to the Big BangIn 1951 the Catholic Church officially pronounced the Big Bang to be in accordance with the Bible. Remember Galileo anyone?Protestant (American) Church remains skeptical.

The Finely Tuned UniverseSome constants of physics, that cannot be derived from any known physical law, have specific values that determine the essential features of the cosmos. If any one of them were “untuned,” the universe would not exist as we know it. For example: Initial Expansion Rate: Too high – no stars. Too low – Big Crunch Strong Nuclear Force: A change by as little as 4% would make carbon based life impossible (Martin Rees) 3+1 Dimensions: Our Universe is the only one where planetary orbits are stable.

Initial Expansion Rate: Too high – no stars. Too low – Big Crunch

Strong Nuclear Force: A change by as little as 4% would make carbon based life impossible (Martin Rees)

3+1 Dimensions: Our Universe is the only one where planetary orbits are stable.

The Anthropic PrincipleThe term “anthropic principle” was coined by Brandon Carter (1974), he defined it as “… to the effect that what we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers.”There have been over twenty – nonequivalent – reformulations of the anthropic principle, most widely accepted being the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) which states: “The universe exists as it does, because if it did not we would not be here to observe it.”Other anthropic principles range from statements that are similar to the WAP such as the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) to the extreme e.g. the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP) and the Gaia Hypothesis.

More Weak Anthropic PrincipleIN 1954, Fred Hoyle made a calculation based upon the WAP. He focused his attention on carbon-12, without which life would not exist. But since life does exist, carbon-12 must have certain resonances so that it would form in stars. This resonance which had not at the time been detected, was soon looked for experimentally and Hoyle was proved to be correct. Upon hearing this Hoyle was prepared to say: “I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparent random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not, then we are back again to a monstrous sequence of accidents.”

Even More WAPKyle Kelly says of the WAP: “The WAP makes it clear that the mere improbability of our own universe is not evidence for divine design. Without evidence for divine design, there is no rational basis for belief in a designer.”John Rees: “There are various ways of reacting to the apparent fine tuning of our six numbers. One hard-headed response is that we couldn’t exist if these numbers weren’t adjusted in the appropriate special way: we manifestly are here, so there’s nothing to be surprised about. Many scientists take this line, but it certainly leaves me unsatisfied.”

Still More WAPJohn Leslie (paraphrased): Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all the marksmen missed! Now while it is true that you should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, nonetheless it is equally true that you should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.

TeleologyTeleology is the school of thought the holds that the universe was designed with a purpose. Teleological arguments mainly involve fine-tuning or irreducible complexity type arguments.

William Paley’s Complexity ArgumentIn crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there: I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer I had given before – that, for anything I knew, the watch might always have been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as the stone?

God of the GapsThe term goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain — "gaps which they will fill up with God" — and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology.“ - Thomas Dixon "Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction"Complexity arguments (read intelligent design) are God of the Gaps type arguments.