Design in the Universe?
Intelligent Christianity #101
Sept. 20, 1999

The psalmist proclaims, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies
proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1) From ancient times to the present,
people have looked at the natural world, have marveled at it, and have seen in
it the handiwork of God. And from the time of the ancient Greeks onward, the
evident order of the natural world has been the basis for an argument to the
existence of God, an argument known as the "argument from design".

The most common form of this argument in the past has been one that starts
with biological structures such as the hand or the human eye and asks how such
extraordinary structures, both in complexity and in function, could have arisen
by chance. However, with Charles Darwin and the advent of evolutionary theory
there arose a possible way of accounting for the emergence of such structures, a
way which makes no appeal to intentional design, relying only on the blind
processes of random mutation and natural selection. That change does take place
in this way is now quite evident, and evolutionary theory has become an
important part of a contemporary understanding of biology. This, however, does
not entail the conclusion that blind (unguided) physical processes can alone be
adequate to account for either the emergence or the development of life. If one
assumes that God does not exist (and if one discounts all forms of animism and
polytheism), then one is left with nothing but blind physical processes, and,
given that we are here, it becomes a foregone conclusion that such processes
must have been adequate.

It may come as a surprise to many that there are indeed good reasons for
doubting the sufficiency of such processes,1
but this talk will not deal with that question. Rather it will address the
question as to whether the content of the laws of physics themselves constitute
evidence for a designer. The issue here can be formulated as a question. Do
the laws of physics themselves manifest an apparent fine tuning without which
life would not be possible? At present, this question must be formulated in
terms of what are called "basic physical constants," such things are the
strengths of the four basic forces (electromagnetism, the weak and strong
nuclear forces, and gravity), the mass and spin of various fundamental
particles, and the speed of light. The question, therefore, is, had the physical
constants been slightly different from what they are, would anything like life
have been possible? Obviously if those constants had been different, we would
not be here, but the issue is whether anything like life would have been
possible.

The surprising answer to that question is that the laws of physics do
seem fine-tuned for the possibility of life. Put another way, there exists
amongst the basic physical constants a delicate balance without which nothing
like life would have been possible. This is not just the conclusion of theists,
of those who would be delighted to find that this is the case; it is a
conclusion shared by most atheists who have wrestled with the question. See, for
instance a recent book by the astrophysicist Martin Rees, Before the
Beginning: Our Universe and Others.2
He is by no means a theist but is convinced that the apparent delicate balance
of natural law is real.

Does granting that there is an apparent fine tuning of natural law
necessitate that one believe there is a cosmic designer? No, it does not. The
most common response amongst atheists is to speculate that there are a vast
number of universes amongst which the basic physical constants vary vary in a
random or indeterministic way. The claim then is that the fine tuning which we
observe simply reflects the truism that intelligent life can only exist where
such fine tuning exists. I will say more about this explanation in the next talk
and also address courrent speculation as to what brought about the origin of the
universe, but the aim of this talk is to advance the thesis that the laws of
physics do indeed exhibit an extraordinary fine tuning, a fine tuning which
makes life possible. Astrophysicist Paul Davies has expressed it as follows:

As more and more physical systems, from nuclei to galaxies have
become better understood, scientists have begun to realize that many
characteristics of these systems are remarkably sensitive to the precise values
of fundamental constants. Had nature opted for a slightly different set of
numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be
here to see it.

More intriguing still, certain crucial structures, such as
solar-type stars, depend for their characteristic features on wildly improbable
numerical accidents that combine together fundamental constants from distinct
branches of physics. And when one goes on to the study of cosmology"the overall
structure and evolution of the universe"incredulity mounts. Recent discoveries
about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has
been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astounding precision. . .
.3

I will give two examples of the evidence in question. A number of others
could be given.

1. THE WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE AND SUPERNOVAE

According to the big bang theory, the only elements to form in the primordial
heat of the big bang were hydrogen and helium (with very small traces of lithium
and berylium). Life requires complex structure and hydrogen and helium do not
provide a basis for such complexity of structure.4
Hence the eventual appearance of life required first the emergence of the
heavier elements. These, are formed in the center of stars through nuclear
fusion. Most of the "life" of a star consists of that long period in which
hydrogen is fused into helium. Eventually enough of the helium gets used up that
the heat generated thereby is unable to counter the gravitational attraction of
the stars mass and the star begins to shrink in volume. Such compaction itself
generates more heat, that heat rising until temperatures are achieved at which
the helium can fuse into heavier elements. As reserves of helium deplete further
contraction occurs enabling the formation of successively heavier elements.

However, for these heavier elements to become the basis for life they need to
be released from the center of the stars in which they form. For stars the size
of our sun, these heavier elements never escape from the star. Such stars
eventually use up their nuclear fuel and collapse into highly dense stars known
as white dwarfs, stars which gradually cool as would a cinder turning cold. The
heavier elements within such stars are trapped. If stars are large enough the
gravitation force will result in a black hole. That heavier elements can get
released from stars is due to what are known as supernovae, a catastrophic
implosion of a stars which in turn triggers a spectacular explosion from the
heat generated by the implosion. The inner portion of the star collapses into
what becomes a neutron star and the outer portion is blown away by the massive
energy generated.
It is with regard to supernovae that a "fine tuning" of
the weak force becomes relevant
The favored explanation as to what makes the
explosion is that the imploding core of the stars produces an enormous number of
neutrinos. These are massless, or nearly so, and interact very little with
ordinary matter-they can easily pass through the Earth without touching it.
However, the densities of the imploding core are so great that the neutrinos
exert sufficient pressure to blow away the outer portion of the star. The weak
force is crucial for it is through weak interactions precipitated by the
implosion that the neutrinos are formed. Calculations show that "If the weak
interaction were much weaker, the neutrinos would not be able to exert enough
pressure on the outer envelope of the star to cause the supernova explosion. On
the other hand, if it were much stronger, the neutrinos would be trapped inside
the core, and rendered impotent."5
With regard to a weaker weak force, Leslie, citing Rees as a source, says,
"While calculations are hard, it seems a safe bet that weakening the weak force
by a factor of ten would have led to a universe consisting mainly of helium and
in which the life-producing explosions could not occur."6
Thus life depends on the weak nuclear force falling within this range.7

2. HELIUM, BERYLLIUM AND CARBON RESONANCES

All forms of life with which we are familiar are carbon-based. Need it be so?
Some have speculated that silicon might be a possible alternative. Silicon is
located in the same column of the periodic table as carbon and in the row below
it. Both have a valence of four, meaning that they each have four electrons
available to enter into chemical bonds. Nonetheless, silicon has serious
disadvantages. Carbon can form double bonds with other elements, i.e. share two
electrons with another atom; silicon forms only single bonds. Thus carbon
dioxide is a stable and exists as a gas"enabling it, among other things, through
photosynthesis, to be the ultimate source of carbon in all living things. By
contrast, silicon dioxide can form only single bonds, leaving two electrons free
to form other bonds and likewise leaving the oxygen atoms free to bond. The
result is that it tends, when bonding to itself, to form a crystal, namely
quartz. Thus silicon becomes overly stable. At the same time it can be not
stable enough, for silicon can actually form up to six bonds, making more
complex silicon compounds less stable than carbon compounds, where the bonds
never exceed four. Also the C"C bond is more stable than the Si"Si bond. It is
crucial to DNA that, although it is very long, it is nonetheless normally very
stable. It is also significant that the various bonds into which carbon enters
are similar in the energy required to form them and are also fairly evenly
divided between being endothermic and exothermic (absorb energy vs. release
energy). Both of these facts result in there being a great number of chemical
processes involving carbon which can take place with relative spontaneity.
Silicon is not nearly so well suited. Finally, "Since carbon forms a wider
variety of compounds than any other element besides hydrogen, this means that
more information can be stored in carbon compounds than in those of any other
element. Since life is self-reproduction of information, carbon compounds are
uniquely fitted to serve as the basis of life."8 Much more could be said, but it should be evident that even if
silicon-based life were possible"which is dubious, it appears to be a decidedly
less attractive alternative.

Saying this about carbon is really a lead-in to a point raised by Fred Hoyle
about the formation of carbon in stars. He suggested (and it was later shown)
that carbon is able to form readily in stars of the right temperature because of
a resonance between carbon, beryllium, and helium. Just as electrons may
exist at various distinct energy levels, so different kinds of nuclei exhibit
distinct energy levels at which they may exist. Now, when two nuclei fuse, the
efficiency of the reaction is greatly enhanced if the intrinsic energy level of
the contributing nuclei together with the kinetic energy equals or just exceeds
a possible energy level for the resulting nucleus. When this happens the
interaction is said to be resonant . Hoyle realized that for carbon to
form successfully there would have to be resonance. Fortunately, this does occur
in stars in the formation of carbon. The process involves two helium nuclei
fusing to form beryllium-8, which although not stable, exists "anomalously long
compared to the He4 + He4 collision
time,"9
due to a resonance between He4 and Be8. The Be8 exists long enough for a
significant rate of collisions of it with another He4
nucleus. Remarkably, C12 also has a resonance with both
He4 and Be8 in this interaction. As a
consequence, a significant amount of carbon is produced in spite of what
appeared initially to be an implausible pathway for its production. Fortunately
for us, the further fusion of carbon with another helium into oxygen does
not resonate.

If this reaction were also resonant, all the carbon would be
rapidly burnt to O16. . . . Hoyle realized that this remarkable chain of
coincidences"the unusual stability of beryllium, the existence of an
advantageous resonance level in C12 and the non-existence of an [advantageous
resonance] level in O16"were necessary, and remarkably fine-tuned, conditions
for our own existence and indeed the existence of any carbon-based life in the
Universe.10

The presence or absence of resonances here could in theory be accounted for
in terms of the strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the masses
of the sub-atomic particles involved but, with atoms of this size, the
complexity of it becomes overwhelming. Nonetheless, Hoyle suggests that perhaps
an increase in the strong force by but 1% might cause almost all carbon to have
formed into oxygen,11
and Rosental suggests that an increase in it of 10% would result in little
carbon being able to form, the fusion process getting stuck at helium.12
And if it were a bit larger than this, Carr and Rees indicate that "nuclei of
almost unlimited size" would form.13

Part of what is interesting about the aforementioned resonances is that it is
not the kind of coincidence which one would expect some overarching theory of
the universe to entail. It certainly may be so entailed, but there is no a
priori reason to expect it. Resonance is not the rule; and apart from the
fact that we are here, there is no reason to expect that the resonances of the
above reactions should be as they are.

Again, there are many other examples of apparent fine tuning which could have
been mentioned, but the two examples illustrate the sort of arguments As
mentioned above, the apparent fine tuning of the laws of physics does not itself
entail that there is a cosmic designer,14
but it does lend significant support to that claim that this world is the
handiwork of God.

Footnotes

1. See for instance, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black
Box (New York: Simon & Schuster [Free Press], 1996)) or Dean Overman's
A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Rowman & Littlefield).
(back)
2.
Reese, Martin, Before the Beginning: Our Universe and
Others (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley [Helix Books, Perseus Books], 1997). See
especially pp. 231-239. .(back)
3.
P[aul] C. W. Davies, The Accidental Universe
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), vii. (back)
4.
Helium is inert and hence does not bind with any other
elements, and lacking sigificant quantities of other elements, hydrogen atoms
will simply form into pairs of hydrogen atoms. (back)
5.
Ibid., 68. For a more mathematical account of this see Barrow
and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 309-310, or see the
article by B. J. Carr and M. J. Rees, "The Anthropic Principle and the Structure
of the Physical World," Nature 278, 12 (1979): 605-612. (back)
6.
Leslie, Universes, 35. He cites Martin J. Rees in
The Constants of Physics: Proceeding Meeting by A Royal Society Discussion
Meeting. Held on 25 and 26 May 1983. , eds. William Hunter McCrea and Martin
J. Rees, London: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, A310 (1983):
209-363. (back)
7.
Small amounts of some of the lighter elements, e.g. up through
oxygen, can escape from certain classes of stars via stellar winds, but this is
minute compared to what comes from supernovae (back)
8.
Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological
Principle, 547. Again, they provide references to a number of other sources.
(back)
9.
Ibid., 252. (back)
10.
Ibid., 253. (back)
11.
Fred Hoyle, Astrophysical Journal , supplementary 107
(1957): 516. (back)
12.
I. L. Rozental, Structure of the Universe and Fundamental
Constants (Moscow: 1981), 8. Cited in Leslie, Universes, 35. (back)
13.
M. J. Rees, in The Constants of Physics, 611. (back)
14.
The usual atheistic response these days is to suggest that
there are a vast number of universes or big bangs amongst which the values of
the basic physical constants vary. That the physical constants which we observe
seem fine tuned so as to make life possible is explained simply by virtue of the
truism that any location (or universe) where creatures like ourselves could be
pondering this fact must be in a place which is capable of sustaining their
existence. If the existence of intelligent beings requires that the values of
the physical constants fall within very narrow ranges, then such beings should
not be surprised that they find themselves in such a location. But it must be
noted that the strength of this kind of response (as opposed to suggesting that
the fine tuning is evidence of a designer, i.e. God) depends on the
multiple-universe speculation and on the idea that the constants vary across
these universes. Such speculation, however, is not driven by any evidence that
such universes exist other than the apparent fine tuning itself. (An alternative
way of getting a multiple-universe type explanation is to embrace the many-world
interpretation of quantum mechanics, but this has major difficulties which must
be addressed on another occasion.) (back)