3.6 The Fine-Tuning Argument

Here's the next 

2.1 Relationships between Science and Faith
2.2 Critical Realism and the Coherence of Truth
2.3 Approaches to Scripture

3.1 General and Special Relativity
3.2 Three Cosmologies
3.4 Ex Nihilo Creation

8.1 Approaches to Genesis 2-3
8.2 Situating Genesis 2-3

_____________________________ 
One of the most compelling arguments for an Intelligent Designer is the fine tuning argument. 

3.6.1 The Argument from Design
In addition to the cosmological argument, the idea that the order of the world points toward an intelligent Creator goes back to ancient times. [1] This "argument from design" or "teleological argument" found its classic expression in the late 1700s with William Paley (1743-1805), an English minister who argued that the complexity of organs like the eye pointed directly to the existence of God as its designer. [2] If you found a watch, he argued, you would not think that it happened to come into existence by chance. You would assume that there was a watchmaker.

However, the argument from design came into question after the theory of evolution began to gain prominence. Contrary to Paley's argument, Darwin's theory argued that complex organisms like humans evolved on their own from simpler ones. In the theory of evolution, the eye evolved into its current form over millions of years entirely by nature "selecting" those versions of a developing eye that gave an advantage to prior organisms. The notion seems to violate our intuitions, but the scientific community would quickly adopt this perspective. As the twentieth century progressed, the teleological argument seemed to have fallen upon hard times.

Enter the fine-tuning argument. The fine tuning argument is the recognition that the stable existence of the universe as a whole is dependent on a significant number of minute, extremely balanced factors. The astoundingly narrow nature of these parameters is such that even non-theists recognize their extreme improbability. [3] We live in a Goldilocks universe that happens to be "just right."

To account for such "fine tuning," non-theists often resort to the notion of a multiverse. [4] In this context, the multiverse concept suggests that our universe is just one of countless universes that are regularly coming into existence. The overwhelming majority of those universes -- this theory supposes -- are failed universes. They are born defunct and non-functioning. We just happen, the sentiment goes, to be in one of very few lucky ones that is sustainable. 

But then we wouldn't be having this conversation if we weren't, the notion continues. It's called the anthropic principle. [5] Our existence is extremely improbable. But we are here, so we must just be impossibly lucky. 

3.6.2 A Goldilocks Universe
Earlier in the chapter, we presented the current theories regarding the early inflationary period of the universe. If we follow the path of the universe's inflation, we can see at every turn the ways in which our universe is thinly balanced. The precision necessary not only for us to be here but for the universe as a whole to exist in such a stable form is truly astounding.

We begin with the three dimensions that are intuitively apparent to us -- up/down, right/left, forward/backward. What would happen if there were more or fewer dimensions to a universe? It is doubtful that such universes could form stars, planets, atoms, or other stable structures. The inverse-square law that governs gravity and electromagnetism depends on a three-dimensional framework. With more or fewer dimensions, forces would not balance in ways that permit stable orbits or atoms. [5] 

As minute fractions of a second passed, the fundamental forces of nature began to differentiate: gravity, the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, and eventually the weak nuclear force. First gravity becomes distinguishable from the other forces. The strong nuclear force becomes differentiated from the electromagnetic force. In the atom, we see these forces balanced on the narrowest of margins. 

The strong nuclear force holds protons together despite the fact that their similar charges repel each other electromagnetically. Yet the nuclear force is too weak at a distance to affect electrons outside the nucleus of the atom. The opposite charges of the nucleus and electrons holds the two in place, but quantum mechanics keeps them from collapsing into the nucleus. If any of these forces were any stronger or weaker, atoms couldn't form. 

The fraction of mass that converts to energy in nuclear reactions is just right for stars to be able to form and exist stably. If it were a greater number, stars would burn out too quickly for planets and life to form. If it were less, stars would not form in the first place.

Even during inflation, quantum fluctuations left slight wrinkles in density, which later became the seeds of galaxies. The map of the cosmic microwave background pictured earlier reflects an unevenness in the distribution of the universe's density. If it had distributed completely evenly, without any "wrinkles," then galaxies would have never formed. Remarkably, the asymmetry of the universe is just right for us to have a universe that works the way we need it to work for us to be here.

A similar asymmetry of the early universe was the fact that there was slightly more matter than antimatter at the key moment. If the two had been entirely balanced, they would have annihilated into a universe that was pure energy in keeping with Einstein's formula E = mc^2. But the slightly greater amount of matter meant that a sufficient portion of matter survived this early moment of annihilation. 

Another finely tuned feature was the overall density of matter in the early universe. If matter had been denser, the universe might not have expanded in the way it has in order to form habitable galaxies. It all would have crunched back into itself. Yet if it had been less dense, it might have expanded too fast for galaxies and solar systems to form.

We might finally mention more conditions under which atoms were formed. We have already mentioned the finely tuned balance of forces in the atom. Assuming that the early universe initially was almost entirely made up of hydrogen -- the simplest atom -- the process by which heavier elements were then formed depends on a razor thin balance.

In particular, the amount of mass converted to energy when hydrogen fuses into helium -- the first step toward there being any other elements -- is finely tuned. If it were greater, all the hydrogen of the universe would have fused into helium. Stars would burn out too quickly, and we would have no water. If it were less, we would have no helium and, by extension, no oxygen or carbon. In addition, the formation of carbon from three helium atoms only can take place because of some very specific "resonances" that exist in these nuclei. 

Like all the other features we have mentioned, the balance is "just right" for these heavier atoms to form that are necessary for life.

The fine tuning of the universe is quite remarkable. It seems to be inexplicable from a standpoint of our universe alone, although in the final section we will mention some attempts at a naturalistic explanation. At the same time, the hypothesis of an Intelligent Designer would provide an eminently reasonable explanation. While perhaps not provable, belief in a Creator based on the fine tuning argument is very reasonable.

[1] E.g., Plato, Timaeus 28a-29a.

[2] William Paley, Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802).

[3] E.g., Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design (Back Bay, 2005).

[4] Another example would be Martin Rees in Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (Basic, 2001).

[5] E.g., Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam, 1988). “We see the universe the way it is because we exist.”

[6] So Rees, Six Numbers. The paragraphs that follow are largely drawn from his observations.