On the Amazing Coincidences of Existence
(Was it all due to an amazing series of accidents?)
Professor
Richard Wolfson is a mainstream physicist, with the
title of Benjamin F. Wissler Professor of Physics at Middlebury College , Vermont
Richard Wolfson, PhD. Physics in Your Life
Lect 36. The Teaching Company 2004
In evolution of stars, hydrogen fusions into helium (N=2). It is very
improbable that three heliums would fuse to form
carbon (N=6). However, two heliums can colide to form an isotope of Berillium,which is very unstable but this partilcle
can then collide with another helium to form carbon, essential for life. If the
life time of the berilium were only a little shorter,
carbon would never have formed, and life would not have developed.
Ervin Laszlo, PhD. Science and the Akashic
Field
Coherence of cosmic ratios
Even in the 1930s, Sir Aurthur Eddington
and Paul Dirac noted some remarkable correspondences
in the “dimensionless ratios” that relate the basic parameters of the universe,
such as ratios of forces and ratio of sizes, masses and numbers of elementary
particles, gravitational constant, charge of an electron, Plank’s constant and
the speed of light.
The cosmic background microwave radiation is uniform in all spatial directions. According to Big Bang theory, it was emitted when the universe was about 400,000 years old. By that time light could have traveled only 400,000 light years, yet at that time the expanding universe was already ten million light years across. Author argues that this uniformity cannot be the result of physical linkages.
Fine tuning of physical constants
The basic parameters of the universe have exactly the
value that allows complex structure to evolve. …The fine tuning involves upward
of thirty factors and considerable accuracy. Such factors include universe
expansion rate, ratio of electromagnetic to gravitational force. Also important
are the precise charge of electrons and protons, and mass of neutron and proton
(this mass differs by twice the mass of an electron)
Paul Davies, PhD. Superforce Touchstone
books, 1984: Chapter 14: A Cosmic Plan? (p. 222-243)
A rational universe
Steven Weinberg once
wrote: “The more the universe seems
comprehensible, the
more it also seems pointless.” His remark is typical of many made by
scientists, who infer from their work that the universe must be considered as a
vast and meaningless accident. Other
scientists, surveying the same data, arrive at other conclusions. To them,
nature is too subtle; too profound. To
them, our scope of vision is far too narrow to grapple with deep issues of
meaning and purpose. A few scientists
are more bold; more positive. They are sufficiently
impressed by the way that the law of nature hang together that they feel
compelled to believe there is something behind it all. Fred Hoyle said “The
universe is a put-up job.” The evidence goes beyond unity. Every advance in
fundamental physics seems to uncover yet another facet or order.
The harmony of nature
The second law of
thermodynamics states, essentially, that disorder can never spontaneously give
rise to order. No violations of this law have ever been observed. Even black
holes, which bring together gravity, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics,
follow the second law of thermodynamics.
Natural genius
Design in the
universe
If nature can exploit
mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity; and if the world’s finest minds
can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, is that not
persuasive evidence of intelligent design behind the physical universe? One of the most articulate proponents of
theological intelligent design is William Paley.
Attempts to deduce intelligent design form the working of nature has been
attacked. Three rebuttals still used today are: 1) that we impose order on the
world to make sense of it; 2) that the reasoning is flawed; 3) that any order
which exists in nature is the product of blind chance and not design. 1) is not convincing when applied to science. It is sometimes
objected that the existence of design in the universe is based on the fallacy
of a posteriori reasoning, or
“thinking backwards”. Davies notes that “thinking backwards” has its pitfalls,
but that it is not always fallacious. How do we know when
“thinking backwards” is likely to lead us astray in looking at the order in the
world. This brings him to the objection 3).
The key in using “thinking backwards”
is to distinguish between two distinct forms of order. One meaning of order is complex organization, as for
example living organisms. For biologists, the theory of evolution provides a
satisfactory explanation for living organisms. Complex organization can
therefore arise spontaneously, without the need for any preplanning. Evolution,
however, can only work given millions of organisms and millions of
generations. A second type of order is
symmetry and simplicity. The atomic crystal lattice and simple harmonic motion
are examples. Neither
spatial or temporal order is merely an incidental feature of the world.
Both are built into the underlying laws. It is the laws which encapsulate the
astonishing orderliness of the world, rather than the actual physical
structures.
Is there a meaning
behind existence?
How finely must the
laws of physics be “tuned” to allow complex structures to exist? In a famous
article in the journal Nature,
British astrophysicists
Bernard Carr and Martin Rees
concluded that the world is extraordinarily sensitive to even minute
changes in the laws of physics, so that if the particular laws we have were to
be altered in any way the universe would change beyond recognition. They found that the existence of complex
structures depend on the numerical values of the “fundamental constants”,
including the speed of light and masses of subatomic particles. astrophysicist
Brandon Carter has studied stellar evolution, and finds an almost unbelievable
delicacy in the balance between gravity and EM within a star. Calculations find
that changes in the strength of either by only one par in 10 to the 40 could
spell catastrophe for stars like our sun.
In Davies’ book The Accidental Universe, he made a
comprehensive study of all the apparent ‘accidents’ and ‘coincidences’ that
seem to be necessary
in order for complex structures to exist. The sheer improbability
that these concurrences could have been the result of a series of lucky
accidents has prompted many scientists to agree with Hoyle’s statement. The
supreme example of complex organization is life itself. If we agree that life
requires the existence of heavy atoms such as carbon, then stringent limits can
be placed on some of the constants. The
upshot to the studies is that had the universe been created with slightly
different laws, not
only would we not be here, but it is doubtful if there would be any complex
structure at all.
Davies last sentence:
“If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the
evidence of modern physics suggest strongly to me that
the purpose includes us.”
Hugh Ross, PhD. How
the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God
This book throws down the gauntlet and proclaims that there are no
coincidences, that all of the fine tuning is evidence of intelligent design.
Chapter 14 of this book is titled A
Just Right Universe, and Chapter 15; Earth: The Place for Life.
In a critique of Ross' methodology, Victor Stenger notes that Ross lists in this book 26 parameters that have to fall within narrow ranges "for life of any kind to exist" (p. 118). These range from the strength of the strong nuclear force to the ratio of exotic to ordinary matter. He also notes that Ross bends the data, as needed, to be consistent with a created universe.
See: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html :
Three proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present their views of design in
the natural world. Each view is immediately followed by a response from a
proponent of evolution (EVO).