Is the Universe Designed or the Product of Blind Chance?
A popular theme running through modern atheism can be summed up in a phrase many like to use when talking to a creationist about the existence of God. They will respond to the creationist by saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Meaning that if we are going to claim there is a God, then the burden of proof is on us to bring conclusive evidence for His existence. And of course atheists will claim that we have not met that burden of proof. But they are mistaken on several grounds. First, they are the ones with the extraordinary claims, not the creationist. Let me explain. Suppose I showed up at your house driving a shiny new red Ferrari. It is already assumed that the Ferrari was designed and built by the Ferrari Motor Company. Now suppose that my friend Jim said that no one designed the car and no one assembled it, the car is the product of an explosion in a steel factory. Well obviously Jim is the one with the extraordinary claim.
The burden of proof for God's existence was met one second after the universe began, because after all, nothing can create itself, every effect is the product of a previous cause. God's existence is presumed given the existence, precision, and complexity of the universe we live in, which incidentally far exceeds that of a Ferrari. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the atheist rather than the creationist. And the proof must include demonstrating how an unguided, unplanned, chaotic event can arrive at a universe like this. In other words, is this what we would expect to find given a universe existing by mere chance. And to date atheists have not produced even a single experiment that demonstrates how chaos and disorder leads to something like the information system in DNA or a universal force like gravity, or a single celled molecule like bacteria. Not even one experiment has produced the likes of any of these three, much less the millions of other evidences we see on our planet.
During the Middle Ages, it was well believed among academics that the universe and all the matter it contained was eternal and stagnant, having no beginning. Common wisdom held that everything we see and touch had always been here and was held together in a constant state. It was known as the Steady State Theory, which alleged that the universe was self-existing. The theory had run-ins with the church, which stood by the Genesis account claiming that the universe, matter, and time itself had a beginning. As scientific inquiry grew further away from the church, those who believed in a creation account, or a time in which the universe had a beginning, were thought to be religious and unscientific. The emergence of Darwinian evolution in the mid-nineteenth century seemed to work well with the Steady State Theory as this paradigm inexplicably required a massive amount of time if it was to hold true. Both theories found consensus among academics through the early twentieth century and were taught as scientific truth throughout the West.
But both would receive a hard blow in 1916 when Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity, which led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning in time. Knowing the implication of his discovery and the possible opposition from his colleagues, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant or “fudge factor” into the equation to avoid the “irritating” idea of a beginning. However, in 1919, following an experiment of a solar eclipse, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington confirmed Einstein’s original calculations – general relativity was true, the universe and everything in it could be traced back to its origins. In his zeal to avoid the repercussions of his findings, the great scientist had done what even a middle school math student knows not to do—Einstein divided by zero. He would later call the “fudge factor” the greatest blunder of his life. Then in 1927, gazing through the lens of the 100-inch telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory, Edwin Hubble confirmed the predictions of relativity; the universe was in fact expanding as Psalm 104 predicted thousands of years earlier. The Steady State Theory, having been taught as scientific fact for decades, was dying a slow death.
By the mid-1960s, the conclusions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the discovery of Big Bang’s radiation afterglow, among others, made the theory of relativity the most accurately tested theory known to science. But the checkered flag wouldn’t come until 1992, when NASA’s $200 million COBE expedition, which set out to find the ripples in cosmic temperature predicted by scientists, began relaying its findings. Stephen Hawking called it “the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.” The discovery he would later write about proved that the rate of expansion was precise enough to allow galaxies to build yet prohibit any possibility of re-collapsing. COBE’s project leader called it “the fingerprint of the maker".1
Big Bang cosmology, which is now universally accepted, poses the greatest problem for materialists, atheists, and evolutionists. It states that a finite time ago, there was nothing, no molecules, no energy, not even time or space. Then in a fraction of a second all the energy and matter in the universe exploded into existence in a great SURGE. With it, time and space came into existence along with all the laws of physics that would come to govern the cosmos. It continued to expand at a precise rate for a few billion years, forming the galaxies and stars as we know them.
Science, which is the study of cause and effect, had now made its way to the first cause. But the Law of Causality, which states that every effect must have a cause, by necessity still holds. Therefore, the atheist is left with the puzzling question: what caused the universe? It is apparent to everyone that from nothing comes nothing. For me the entire concept of nothing in and of itself is quite challenging because every time I try to think of nothing, I find myself thinking of some kind of vast dark empty space, but that’s something. Nothing means no darkness, no light, no space, and no place in time.
Many Christians still reject the Big Bang theory despite the fact that it is supported by tens of thousands of observations from several scientific disciplines. Part of the reason is that many Christians don't understand the central argument of Big Bang Cosmology. The primary tenants are that the universe had a beginning in time and that the universe is expanding. Nothing could be better supported by scripture, so much so that the scientific community was in a state of hysteria shortly after Einstein proposed it. For decades scientists believed that the universe was static and eternal. Then came General Relativity and countless observations.
The Bible has something to say about this, as Hebrew 11:3 states, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." Speaking of God, the Bible states, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain (Psalm 104:2). The two most important tenants of the Big Bang Theory were dictated in the Bible long before Einstein and Lemaitre made their predictions. Primarily that the universe had a beginning and that the universe is expanding. What are some of the other possibilities for our universe?
Is the Universe Fine-Tuned?
The atheist’s only response to this dilemma is to avoid the issue altogether by asking, If everything needs a cause, then who made God? But this stance wrongly states the premise of causality, which states that every effect must have a cause. God is not an effect; rather He is an eternal being with no beginning, which is logically plausible. He is outside of time and space, or more specifically, He is transcendent. In Who Made God, and Answers to 100 Other Tough Questions about Faith, Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler take on the atheists and apply common sense to their objections. But notice that just sixty years ago it was the liberal academics who argued for the eternal existence of matter while refuting the idea of a beginning. And while they smear the medieval church with accusations of spreading lies and myths, they conveniently forget the misinformation they propagated for hundreds of years in the name of science.
For your liberal professor, the problem of causality is just the beginning. As astronomers and physicists reach the outer limits of our universe and unravel the depths of its mystery, one thing has become increasingly clear: the level of finely tuned conditions necessary to make the universe suitable for life is staggering. Physicist Robin Collins put it this way, “When scientists talk of the fine tuning of the universe they’re usually referring to the extraordinary balancing of the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. Our minds can’t comprehend the precision of some of them. The coincidences are simply too amazing to have been the result of happenstance.”2 Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculated just one of the parameters needed to set the universe on its course when he noted that the original phase space volume required an accuracy of 1 in 10 billion multiplied by itself 123 times. The number is so large it can’t even be written out because it has more zeros than the universe has atoms.3 Oxford mathematician Stephen Hawking estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion just one second after Big Bang had been smaller by one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.4
Back in 1963 we knew of only three such parameters. In 1989 astrophysicist Hugh Ross published the first edition of The Fingerprint of God and listed 16 characteristics requiring fine tuning for the universe and 19 for the solar system.5 By 1995, when he published The Creator and the Cosmos, the list reached 26 for the universe and 41 for the solar system.6 Today, listed on his website www.reasons.org, you will find no less than 35 vastly improbable characteristics necessary to make life possible in the universe and 122 for the solar system.
Walter Bradley outlines a few of these characteristics in Sign of Intelligence. He demonstrates how a 2 percent increase on the strong force relative to the electromagnetic force leaves the universe with no hydrogen and no water. If the electromagnetic force relative to the gravitational force had been weaker, stars would contain a billion times less mass and would burn a million times faster.7 Among Hugh Ross’ list he notes the ratio of electron to proton mass, the velocity of light, the galaxy cluster density, the entropy level of the universe, and the decay rate of protons, all of which had to be specifically tuned within an unthinkable window of possibilities.8
Protons are the positively charged subatomic particles which (along with neutrons) form the nucleus of an atom (around which negatively charged electrons orbit). Protons just happen to be 1,836 times larger than electrons. If they were a little bigger or a little smaller, we would not exist (because atoms could not form the molecules we require). So how did protons end up being 1,836 times larger than electrons? Why not 100 times larger or 100,000 times? Why not smaller? Of all the possible variables, how did protons end up being just the right size? Protons carry a positive electrical charge equal to that of the negatively charged electrons. If protons did not balance electrons and vice versa, we would not exist. They are not comparable in size, yet they are perfectly balanced. Did nature just stumble upon such an exact relationship, or did God ordain it for our sake?9
The famous British astronomer and cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle claims that, "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 10
The Universe is an Extension of Our God
Romans chapter 1:20 states, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse..." The universe, solar system and living organism provides conclusive evidence for the existence of God. The medieval church understood that while the Bible provides special revelation from God, nature provides general revelation of his attributes. The influence this verse had on Western Civilization is immeasurable, as the knowledge of God through nature became the catalyst that launched the Scientific Revolution. Today many have lost sight of this idea that we can understand God in a deeper way by understanding the universe He created. Below is a short list of how the universe can help us better understand the Biblical Creator.
Notes
Articles
What is the Anthropic Principle? www.gotquestions.org
Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity Dr. Hugh Ross
What's the Greater Leap of Faith : God or Multiverse Prager University
Does the Vastness of the Universe Prove Naturalism Frank Turek
The burden of proof for God's existence was met one second after the universe began, because after all, nothing can create itself, every effect is the product of a previous cause. God's existence is presumed given the existence, precision, and complexity of the universe we live in, which incidentally far exceeds that of a Ferrari. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the atheist rather than the creationist. And the proof must include demonstrating how an unguided, unplanned, chaotic event can arrive at a universe like this. In other words, is this what we would expect to find given a universe existing by mere chance. And to date atheists have not produced even a single experiment that demonstrates how chaos and disorder leads to something like the information system in DNA or a universal force like gravity, or a single celled molecule like bacteria. Not even one experiment has produced the likes of any of these three, much less the millions of other evidences we see on our planet.
During the Middle Ages, it was well believed among academics that the universe and all the matter it contained was eternal and stagnant, having no beginning. Common wisdom held that everything we see and touch had always been here and was held together in a constant state. It was known as the Steady State Theory, which alleged that the universe was self-existing. The theory had run-ins with the church, which stood by the Genesis account claiming that the universe, matter, and time itself had a beginning. As scientific inquiry grew further away from the church, those who believed in a creation account, or a time in which the universe had a beginning, were thought to be religious and unscientific. The emergence of Darwinian evolution in the mid-nineteenth century seemed to work well with the Steady State Theory as this paradigm inexplicably required a massive amount of time if it was to hold true. Both theories found consensus among academics through the early twentieth century and were taught as scientific truth throughout the West.
But both would receive a hard blow in 1916 when Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity, which led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning in time. Knowing the implication of his discovery and the possible opposition from his colleagues, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant or “fudge factor” into the equation to avoid the “irritating” idea of a beginning. However, in 1919, following an experiment of a solar eclipse, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington confirmed Einstein’s original calculations – general relativity was true, the universe and everything in it could be traced back to its origins. In his zeal to avoid the repercussions of his findings, the great scientist had done what even a middle school math student knows not to do—Einstein divided by zero. He would later call the “fudge factor” the greatest blunder of his life. Then in 1927, gazing through the lens of the 100-inch telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory, Edwin Hubble confirmed the predictions of relativity; the universe was in fact expanding as Psalm 104 predicted thousands of years earlier. The Steady State Theory, having been taught as scientific fact for decades, was dying a slow death.
By the mid-1960s, the conclusions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the discovery of Big Bang’s radiation afterglow, among others, made the theory of relativity the most accurately tested theory known to science. But the checkered flag wouldn’t come until 1992, when NASA’s $200 million COBE expedition, which set out to find the ripples in cosmic temperature predicted by scientists, began relaying its findings. Stephen Hawking called it “the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.” The discovery he would later write about proved that the rate of expansion was precise enough to allow galaxies to build yet prohibit any possibility of re-collapsing. COBE’s project leader called it “the fingerprint of the maker".1
Big Bang cosmology, which is now universally accepted, poses the greatest problem for materialists, atheists, and evolutionists. It states that a finite time ago, there was nothing, no molecules, no energy, not even time or space. Then in a fraction of a second all the energy and matter in the universe exploded into existence in a great SURGE. With it, time and space came into existence along with all the laws of physics that would come to govern the cosmos. It continued to expand at a precise rate for a few billion years, forming the galaxies and stars as we know them.
Science, which is the study of cause and effect, had now made its way to the first cause. But the Law of Causality, which states that every effect must have a cause, by necessity still holds. Therefore, the atheist is left with the puzzling question: what caused the universe? It is apparent to everyone that from nothing comes nothing. For me the entire concept of nothing in and of itself is quite challenging because every time I try to think of nothing, I find myself thinking of some kind of vast dark empty space, but that’s something. Nothing means no darkness, no light, no space, and no place in time.
Many Christians still reject the Big Bang theory despite the fact that it is supported by tens of thousands of observations from several scientific disciplines. Part of the reason is that many Christians don't understand the central argument of Big Bang Cosmology. The primary tenants are that the universe had a beginning in time and that the universe is expanding. Nothing could be better supported by scripture, so much so that the scientific community was in a state of hysteria shortly after Einstein proposed it. For decades scientists believed that the universe was static and eternal. Then came General Relativity and countless observations.
The Bible has something to say about this, as Hebrew 11:3 states, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." Speaking of God, the Bible states, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain (Psalm 104:2). The two most important tenants of the Big Bang Theory were dictated in the Bible long before Einstein and Lemaitre made their predictions. Primarily that the universe had a beginning and that the universe is expanding. What are some of the other possibilities for our universe?
- Universe always existed - Vastly disproved by General Relativity and Big Bang cosmology.
- Universe created itself - Logically contradictory – if it created itself, it had to exist before it was created in order to create.
- Universe was created by outside agent – God - The only rational explanation.
Is the Universe Fine-Tuned?
The atheist’s only response to this dilemma is to avoid the issue altogether by asking, If everything needs a cause, then who made God? But this stance wrongly states the premise of causality, which states that every effect must have a cause. God is not an effect; rather He is an eternal being with no beginning, which is logically plausible. He is outside of time and space, or more specifically, He is transcendent. In Who Made God, and Answers to 100 Other Tough Questions about Faith, Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler take on the atheists and apply common sense to their objections. But notice that just sixty years ago it was the liberal academics who argued for the eternal existence of matter while refuting the idea of a beginning. And while they smear the medieval church with accusations of spreading lies and myths, they conveniently forget the misinformation they propagated for hundreds of years in the name of science.
For your liberal professor, the problem of causality is just the beginning. As astronomers and physicists reach the outer limits of our universe and unravel the depths of its mystery, one thing has become increasingly clear: the level of finely tuned conditions necessary to make the universe suitable for life is staggering. Physicist Robin Collins put it this way, “When scientists talk of the fine tuning of the universe they’re usually referring to the extraordinary balancing of the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. Our minds can’t comprehend the precision of some of them. The coincidences are simply too amazing to have been the result of happenstance.”2 Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculated just one of the parameters needed to set the universe on its course when he noted that the original phase space volume required an accuracy of 1 in 10 billion multiplied by itself 123 times. The number is so large it can’t even be written out because it has more zeros than the universe has atoms.3 Oxford mathematician Stephen Hawking estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion just one second after Big Bang had been smaller by one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.4
Back in 1963 we knew of only three such parameters. In 1989 astrophysicist Hugh Ross published the first edition of The Fingerprint of God and listed 16 characteristics requiring fine tuning for the universe and 19 for the solar system.5 By 1995, when he published The Creator and the Cosmos, the list reached 26 for the universe and 41 for the solar system.6 Today, listed on his website www.reasons.org, you will find no less than 35 vastly improbable characteristics necessary to make life possible in the universe and 122 for the solar system.
Walter Bradley outlines a few of these characteristics in Sign of Intelligence. He demonstrates how a 2 percent increase on the strong force relative to the electromagnetic force leaves the universe with no hydrogen and no water. If the electromagnetic force relative to the gravitational force had been weaker, stars would contain a billion times less mass and would burn a million times faster.7 Among Hugh Ross’ list he notes the ratio of electron to proton mass, the velocity of light, the galaxy cluster density, the entropy level of the universe, and the decay rate of protons, all of which had to be specifically tuned within an unthinkable window of possibilities.8
Protons are the positively charged subatomic particles which (along with neutrons) form the nucleus of an atom (around which negatively charged electrons orbit). Protons just happen to be 1,836 times larger than electrons. If they were a little bigger or a little smaller, we would not exist (because atoms could not form the molecules we require). So how did protons end up being 1,836 times larger than electrons? Why not 100 times larger or 100,000 times? Why not smaller? Of all the possible variables, how did protons end up being just the right size? Protons carry a positive electrical charge equal to that of the negatively charged electrons. If protons did not balance electrons and vice versa, we would not exist. They are not comparable in size, yet they are perfectly balanced. Did nature just stumble upon such an exact relationship, or did God ordain it for our sake?9
The famous British astronomer and cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle claims that, "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 10
The Universe is an Extension of Our God
Romans chapter 1:20 states, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse..." The universe, solar system and living organism provides conclusive evidence for the existence of God. The medieval church understood that while the Bible provides special revelation from God, nature provides general revelation of his attributes. The influence this verse had on Western Civilization is immeasurable, as the knowledge of God through nature became the catalyst that launched the Scientific Revolution. Today many have lost sight of this idea that we can understand God in a deeper way by understanding the universe He created. Below is a short list of how the universe can help us better understand the Biblical Creator.
- Galaxies - Reveal God’s power
- Water cycle - Reveals God’s care
- Magnetic fields - Reveals God’s protection
- Vegetation - Reveals God’s provision
- DNA - Reveals God’s wisdom
- Molecules - Reveals God’s precision
- Photosynthesis - Reveals God’s preparation
- Gravity - Reveals God’s order
- The Cross - Reveals God' love. God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).
Notes
- Fred Heeren, Show Me God, (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000), 135 as quoted by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004)
- Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 130
- Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, (New York: Oxford, 1989), 344 as quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004)
- Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), 123
- Huge Ross, Ph. D., The Fingerprint of God, (Orange, CA: Promise Publishing Co., 1991)
- Huge Ross, Ph. D., The Creator and the Cosmos, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001)
- William A Dembski and James M. Kushiner, Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazo Press, 2001), 163
- Huge Ross, Ph. D., Beyond the Cosmos: What Recent Discoveries in Astrophysics Reveal About the Glory and Love of God, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1999)
- www.gotquestions.org/anthropic-principle.html
- Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16
Articles
What is the Anthropic Principle? www.gotquestions.org
Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity Dr. Hugh Ross
What's the Greater Leap of Faith : God or Multiverse Prager University
Does the Vastness of the Universe Prove Naturalism Frank Turek