Life: Accident or Act? The Teleological and Design Arguments for God’s Existence Part 4

In Part 1 of this series, we discussed how William Paley’s teleological argument for God’s existence was undermined by David Hume’s argument that the apparent order in the world could be the result of the random movement of eternal matter in motion. Additionally, in Parts 2 and 3, we examined the Darwinian arguments for the origin and development of life due to the properties of matter, which many people assumed laid Paley’s argument to rest once and for all. 

However, in 1930, British philosopher of religion and theologian, Frederick R. Tennant (1866-1957), published volume two of his major work, Philosophical Theology.i In it, Tennant developed a new version of the teleological argument, which he called “wider teleology.” 

Rather than argue, as Paley did, that specific instances of apparent design in nature, such as the human eye, point to an intelligent designer, Tennant maintained, "the multitude of interwoven adaptations by which the world is constituted a theatre of life, intelligence, and morality, cannot reasonably be regarded as an outcome of mechanism, or of blind formative power, or of aught but purposive intelligence."ii In other words, the conditions needed for the existence of intelligent life in our universe are so complex, so specific, and so unique they could not be the product of random chance but require an intelligence to produce them. As Tennant says, “Presumably the world is comparable with a single throw of dice. And common sense is not foolish in suspecting that the dice are loaded.”iii 

Since Tennant’s day, scientists have discovered numerous examples of the highly improbable conditions necessary for life, which they have dubbed “cosmic fine-tuning.” For instance, water, one of the most common substances on earth, has a number of unique physical properties which make it essential for life. Here are four of its most noteworthy attributes: 

First, water is a “universal solvent,” which means it can dissolve a great variety of substances to form a solution. These substances include minerals, chemicals, and nutrients which living cells need for survival. Drinking water is a simple means of ingesting these life-giving substances. 

Second, unlike most liquids, water becomes less dense when it freezes. This allows ice to float on water rather than sink, thus insulating the water below from extreme cold. Otherwise, the ice would pile up on the bottom of bodies of water until they would freeze solid and the aquatic life in them would perish. 

Third, water also has a relatively high “specific heat capacity” (the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance by one degree Celsius). For example, the specific heat capacity of water is more than twice that of vegetable oil. Consequently, water is resistant to extreme temperature changes, either by cooling or heating, so it helps to stabilize the environment. 

Fourth, water has the highest “heat of vaporization” (the amount of energy required to convert a liquid into a gas) of the common liquids. Thus, as water evaporates, it removes a great amount of heat with it. This makes water an efficient coolant by evaporation, and many creatures make use of it to regulate their body temperature. Some, such as dogs, use panting (respiratory evaporation) to reduce body heat. Others, such as horses and humans, rely on sweating to cool down. 

If water just contained any one of these properties, we would readily acknowledge its importance to our existence. However, the fact that it possesses all of them and more, is either, in the words of physicist Freeman Dyson, an incredibly “lucky accident”iv or it is indicative of remarkable fine-tuning. 

Another example of fine-tuning is the extremely small size of sub-atomic particles that make up the physical universe. Astronomer Luke Barnes explains:  

We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand [.0004 grams], the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10-27 and 8.6 x 10-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are. 

However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe. 

The universe we happen to have is so surprising under the Standard Model because the fundamental particles of which atoms are composed are, in the words of cosmologist Leonard Susskind, “absurdly light.”v 

A third example of fine-tuning is the “strong nuclear force constant.” In grade school science class, you probably learned the nucleus of an atom is composed of protons and neutrons. Protons have a positive electric charge, and neutrons are neutral. Since particles with the same electrical charge repel one another, any atom with more than one proton should split its nucleus apart. However, the strong nuclear force binds protons and neutrons together to maintain the integrity of the nucleus. 

This is where fine-tuning is crucial. If the strong nuclear force were just 2% weaker, no element with more than one proton could form. On the other hand, If the force were just 0.3% stronger, all the hydrogen would be converted to heavier elements and there would be no water and no fuel for the stars to consume! Either way, the universe could never support any life. 

After examining numerous examples of fine-tuning such as we have detailed above, philosopher Richard Swinburn concludes, “That there should exist anything at all, let alone a universe as complex and as orderly as ours, is exceedingly strange. But if there is a God, it is not vastly unlikely that he should create such a universe.”vi 

Of course, naturalists, unwilling to acknowledge the possibility of a God behind the design of the material universe, have offered alternative explanations of cosmic fine-tuning. Some of them attribute the fine-tuning of the universe to a physical necessity that the universe must be of such a nature that it is capable of sustaining life. An example of this approach is the anthropic principle. 

The anthropic principle says that it isn’t surprising that we find the universe ‘fine-tuned’ for life, since if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. Barrow and Tipler list four variations of the principle, advocated by different cosmologists.vii 

“Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.”viii 

“Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.”ix 

“Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) for a second possible interpretation of the SAP: Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.”x 

“Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.”xi 

Critics of the latter three versions of the principle argue that they are highly speculative and are guilty of reversing cause and effect, like arguing that hot dogs were made long and narrow to fit into hotdog buns. Therefore, we will focus on the weak (WAP) version. 

Basically, the WAP does not say the universe was specially made for our existence or that God created the universe to support human life. Rather, there are times and places in the universe where life is likely to exist. Therefore, since we exist in one of those times and places, our understanding of the universe is shaped by what we see around us. 

Thus, naturalist advocates of the WAP like it for two reasons: First, cosmic fine-tuning is not really all that remarkable. It was bound to happen somewhere in the universe, and we just happened to be here to witness it. Second, there is no need to invoke God as an explanation for the existence of the universe and its intelligent life. 

Critics of the WAP, both theists and nontheists, argue the WAP is meaningless and unscientific, because it is a tautology. In a tautology, the subject and predicate say the same thing, only in different words, so nothing new is indicated. For example, Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is a tautology: Who survives? The fittest. Who is the fittest? The one who survived. 

In the case of the WAP, says philosopher Michael Egnor, the tautology is that intelligent beings can only exist in a universe which permits their existence, which is to say, “only a universe with intelligent beings can be a universe with intelligent beings.”xii Consequently, the WAP does not enable scientists to explain or to predict anything they did not already know. Therefore, it is useless. 

As we indicated above, via the statements of Tennant, Barnes, and Swinburn, the odds against our universe having just the right conditions to support intelligent life are so great, and the lack of a reasonable natural explanation for those conditions is so obvious, that the theory of an intelligent Designer looks better and better. 

Not to be deterred, however, other cosmologists have theorized an alternative naturalistic explanation of cosmic fine-tuning which argues that our universe is but one of an infinite number of universes. In such a case, it is logical that at least one of these universes is capable of supporting life. This is the many-worlds hypothesis. 

This hypothesis offers three advantages over the anthropic principle. First, it does not have to demonstrate how and why the universal fine-tuning constants have such specific values. In an infinite number of universes, there could be a different set of constants for each universe. Some of them might be life-permitting and most of them might not. Ours just happens to be life-permitting. 

Second, where the low probability of our universe supporting life is a major stumbling block for the anthropic principle, in an infinity of universes every possibility would be realized, including all life-permitting ones. Improbability is no longer an issue. 

Third, proponents of the many-worlds hypothesis have offered various models to explain how all the universes might have been generated, each with its own set of physical laws and constants. 

The proliferation of many-worlds hypotheses has undoubtedly encouraged our societal fascination with multiverse storylines in novels, comic books, movies, and television shows. However, we should not confuse popularity with possibility or actuality. With that in mind, here are several serious shortcomings for the hypothesis. 

One, the only universe we can observe is our own. If there are other universes out there, they are forever beyond our reach. Speculation about possible universes is a far cry from studying actual ones. 

Two, there is no guarantee that an infinite number of universes exist or that universes will be generated for eternity. 

Three, even if an infinite number of universes exist, that does not guarantee that every conceivable set of laws and constants must be actualized. Perhaps every universe would be like ours. Or perhaps every universe other than ours would lack any sentient life. 

Four, philosopher William Lane Craig argues, “In the first place, it needs to be recognized that the Many-Worlds Hypothesis is no more scientific, and no less metaphysical, than the hypothesis of a Cosmic Designer … But it is simpler to postulate one Cosmic Designer to explain our universe than to postulate the infinitely bloated and contrived ontology of the Many-Worlds Hypothesis.”xiii 

After considering the possible explanations for fine-tuning which we have discussed above, Craig offers the following syllogism: 

(1) The fine-tuning of the initial state of the Universe is due to either physical necessity [the anthropic principle], chance [the many-worlds hypothesis], or design.  

(2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.  

(3) Therefore, it is due to design.xiv 

The choice, Craig says, is not difficult as some would have us believe. “We appear then to be confronted with two alternatives: posit either a cosmic Designer or an exhaustively random, infinite number of other worlds. Faced with these options, is not theism just as rational a choice as multiple worlds?”xv 

Among the growing number of philosophers and scientists who agree with Craig’s conclusion, noted astronomer Fred Hoyle summarized the evidence for design this way: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with 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.”xvi