Design and the Anthropic Principle

by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

Summary

Human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the
parameters for the universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly
restricted ranges. John Wheeler and others interpret these amazing
"coincidences" as proof that human existence somehow determines the design
of the universe. Drawing an illogical parallel with delayed-choice
experiments in quantum mechanics, they say that observations by humans
influence the design of the universe, not only now, but back to the
beginning. Such versions of what is called the "anthropic principle"
reflect current philosophical and religious leanings towards the
deification of man. They produce no evidence to support the notion that
man's present acts can influence past events. Furthermore, their analogies
with quantum mechanics break down on this point. The "coincidental" values
of the constants of physics and the parameters of the universe point,
rather, to a designer who transcends the dimensions and limits of the
physical universe.

related articles:

Evidence
for Design of the Cosmos

New
Astronomical Proofs for the Existence of God

Quantum
Mechanics, a Modern Goliath

Astronomical
Evidences for the God of the Bible

Cosmic Connection

Now that the limits and parameters of the universe can be calculated,
and some even directly measured, astronomers and physicists have begun to
recognize a connection between these limits and parameters and the
existence of life. It is impossible to imagine a universe containing life
in which any one of the fundamental constants of physics or any one of the
fundamental parameters of the universe is different, even slightly so, in
one way or another.

From this recognition arises the anthropic principle—everything
about the universe tends toward man, toward making life possible and
sustaining it. The first popularizer of the principle American physicist
John Wheeler, describes it in this way, "A life-giving factor lies at the
centre of the whole machinery and design of the world."1

Of course, design in the natural world has been acknowledged since the
beginning of recorded history. Divine design is the message of each of the
several hundred creation accounts that form the basis of the world's
religions.2, 3 The idea
that the natural world was designed especially for mankind is the very
bedrock of the Greek, as well as of the Judeo-Christian world view.
Western philosophers of the post-Roman era went so far as to formalize a
discipline called teleology—the study of the evidence for overall
design and purpose in nature. Teleology attracted such luminaries as
Augustine, Maimonides, Aquinas, Newton and Paley, all of whom gave it much
of their life's work.

Dirac and Dicke's Coincidences

One of the first to recognize that design may also apply to the gross
features of the universe was American physicist Robert Dicke. In 1961 he
noted that life is possible in the universe only because of the special
relationships among certain cosmological parameters4 (relationships researched by British
physicist Paul Dirac twenty-four years earlier5).

Dirac noted that the number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) in the
universe is the square of the gravitational constant as well as the square
of the age of the universe (both expressed as dimensionless numbers).
Dicke discerned that with a slight change in either of these relationships
life could not exist. Stars of the right type for sustaining life
supportable planets only can occur during a certain range of ages for the
universe. Similarly, stars of the right type only can form for a narrow
range of values of the gravitational constant.

The Universe as a Fit Habitat

In recent years these and other parameters for the universe have been
more sharply defined and analyzed. Now, nearly two dozen coincidences
evincing design have been acknowledged:

1. The gravitational coupling constant—i.e., the force of gravity,
determines what kinds of stars are possible in the universe. If the
gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation would proceed
more efficiently and all Stars would be more massive than our sun by at
least 1.4 times. These large stars are important in that they alone
manufacture elements heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements
heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium. Such elements are
essential for the formation of planets as well as of living things in
any form. However, these Stars burn too rapidly and too unevenly to
maintain life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets. Stars as
small as our sun are necessary for that.

On the other hand, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker,
all stars would have less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. Though
such stars burn long and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting
planets, no heavy elements essential for building such planets or life
would exist.

2. The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the
particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were
slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen
would be the only element in the universe.

If this force were slightly stronger, not only would hydrogen be rare
in the universe, but the supply of the various life-essential elements
heavier than iron (elements resulting from the fission of very heavy
elements) would be insufficient. Either way, life would be impossible.a

3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant affects the behavior of
leptons. Leptons form a whole class of elementary particles (e.g.
neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in strong
nuclear reactions. The most familiar weak interaction effect is
radioactivity, in particular, the beta decay reaction:

neutron à proton + electron +
neutrino

The availability of neutrons as the universe cools through
temperatures appropriate for nuclear fusion determines the amount of
helium produced during the first few minutes of the big bang. If the
weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrons
would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available. Hence,
little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the
necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life
would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. On the other
hand, if this constant were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn
most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent
over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and again life would not
be possible.

A second, possibly more delicate, balance occurs for supernovae. It
appears that an outward surge of neutrinos determines whether or not a
supernova is able to eject its heavy elements into outer space. If the
weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrinos
would pass through a supernova's envelop without disturbing it. Hence,
the heavy elements produced by the supernova would remain in the core.
If the constant were slightly smaller, the neutrinos would not be
capable of blowing away the envelop. Again, the heavy elements essential
for life would remain trapped forever within the cores of supernovae.

4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons
in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms
determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If
the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly smaller, no
electrons would be held in orbits about nuclei. If it were slightly
larger, an atom could not "share" an electron orbit with other atoms.
Either way, molecules, and hence life, would be impossible.

5. The ratio of electron to proton mass also determines the
characteristics of (he orbits of electrons about nuclei. A proton is
1836 times more massive than an electron. if the electron to proton mass
ratio were slightly larger or slightly smaller, again, molecules would
not form, and life would be impossible.

6. The age of the universe governs what kinds of stars exist. It
takes about three billion years for the first stars to form. It takes
another ten or twelve billion years for supernovae to spew out enough
heavy elements to make possible stars like our sun, stars capable of
spawning rocky planets. Yet another few billion years is necessary for
solar-type stars to stabilize sufficiently to support advanced life on
any of its planets. Hence, if the universe were just a couple of billion
years younger, no environment suitable for life would exist. However, if
the universe were about ten (or more) billion years older than it is,
there would be no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the
right part of a galaxy. In other words, the window of time during which
life is possible in the universe is relatively narrow.

7. The expansion rate of the universe determines what kinds of stars,
if any, form in the universe. If the rate of expansion were slightly
less, the whole universe would have recollapsed before any solar-type
stars could have settled into a stable burning phase. If the universe
were expanding slightly more rapidly, no galaxies (and hence no stars)
would condense from the general expansion. How critical is this
expansion rate? According to Alan Guth,6 it must be
fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055. Guth, however, suggests that his
inflationary model, given certain values for the four fundamental forces
of physics, may provide a natural explanation for the critical expansion
rate.

8. The entropy level of the universe affects the condensation of
massive systems. The universe contains 100,000,000 photons for every
baryon. This makes the universe extremely entropic, i.e. a very
efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy level for the
universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems would form (and
therefore no stars). If the entropy level were slightly smaller, the
galactic systems that formed would effectively trap radiation and
prevent any fragmentation of the Systems into stars Either way the
universe would be devoid of stars and, thus, of life. (Some models for
the universe relate this coincidence to a dependence of entropy upon the
gravitational coupling constant.7, 8.)

9. The mass of the universe (actually mass + energy, since E =
mc2) determines how much nuclear burning
takes place as the universe cools from the hot big bang. If the mass
were slightly larger, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms with nuclei
containing both a proton and a neutron) would form during the cooling of
the big bang. Deuterium is a powerful catalyst for subsequent nuclear
burning in Stars. This extra deuterium would cause stars to burn much
too rapidly to sustain life on any possible planet.

On the other hand, if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller,
no helium would be generated during the cooling of the big bang. Without
helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life.
Thus, we see a reason why the universe is as big as it is. If it were
any smaller (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be
possible.

10. The uniformity of the universe determines its stellar components.
Our universe has a high degree of uniformity. Such uniformity is
considered to arise most probably from a brief period of inflationary
expansion near the time of the origin of the universe. If the inflation
(or some other mechanism) had not smoothed the universe to the degree we
see, the universe would have developed into a plethora of black holes
separated by virtually empty space.

On the other hand, if the universe were smoothed beyond this degree,
stars, star clusters, and galaxies may never have formed at all. Either
way, the resultant universe would be incapable of supporting life.

11. The stability of the proton affects the quantity of matter in the
universe and also the radiation level as it pertains to higher life
forms. Each proton contains three quarks. Through the agency of other
particles (called bosons) quarks decay into antiquarks, pions, and
positive electrons. Currently in our universe this decay process occurs
on the average of only once per proton per 1032 years.b If that rate were greater, the biological
consequences for large animals and man would be catastrophic, for the
proton decays would deliver lethal doses of radiation.

On the other hand, if the proton were more stable (less easily formed
and less likely to decay), less matter would have emerged from events
occurring in the first split second of the universe's existence. There
would be insufficient matter in the universe for life to be possible.

12. The fine structure constants relate directly to each of the four
fundamental forces of physics (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong
nuclear, and weak nuclear). Compared to the coupling constants, the fine
structure constants typically yield stricter design constraints for the
universe. For example, the electromagnetic fine structure constant
affects the opacity of stellar material. (Opacity is the degree to which
a material permits radiant energy to pass through). In star formation,
gravity pulls material together while thermal motions tend to pull it
apart. An increase in the opacity of this material will limit the effect
of thermal motions. Hence, smaller clumps of material will be able to
overcome the resistance of the thermal motions. If the electromagnetic
fine structure constant were slightly larger, all stars would be less
than 0.7 times the mass of the sun. If the electromagnetic fine
structure constant were slightly smaller, all stars would be more than
1.8 times the mass of the sun.

13. The velocity of light can be expressed in a variety of ways as a
function of any one of the fundamental forces of physics or as a
function of one of the fine structure constants. Hence, in the case of
this constant, too, the slightest change, up or down, would negate any
possibility for life in the universe.

14. The 8Be, 12C, and 16O
nuclear energy levels affect the manufacture and abundance of elements
essential to life. Atomic nuclei exist in various discrete energy
levels. A transition from one level to another occurs through the
emission or capture of a photon that possesses precisely the energy
difference between the two levels. The first coincidence here is that
8Be decays in just 10-15 seconds. Because 8Be is so highly unstable, it slows down the
fusion process. If it were more stable, fusion of heavier elements would
proceed so readily that catastrophic stellar explosions would result.
Such explosions would prevent the formation of many heavy elements
essential for life. On the other hand, if 8Be were even more unstable, element production
beyond 8Be would not occur.

The second coincidence is that 12C
happens to have a nuclear energy level very slightly above the sum of
the energy levels for 8Be and 4He. Anything other than this precise nuclear
energy level for 12C would guarantee
insufficient carbon production for life.

The third coincidence is that 16O has
exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon
from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these
coincidences in 1953, concluded that "a superintellect has monkeyed with
physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."10

15. The distance between stars affects the orbits and even the
existence of planets. The average distance between stars in our part of
the galaxy is about 30 trillion miles. If this distance were slightly
smaller, the gravitational interaction between stars would be so strong
as to destabilize planetary orbits. this destabilization would create
extreme temperature variations on the planet. If this distance were
slightly larger, the heavy element debris thrown out by supernovae would
be so thinly distributed that rocky planets like earth would never form.
The average distance between stars is just right to make possible a
planetary system such as our own.

16. The rate of luminosity increase for stars affects the temperature
conditions on surrounding planets. Small stars, like the sun, settle
into a stable burning phase once the hydrogen fusion process ignites
within their core. However, during this stable burning phase such stars
undergo a very gradual increase in their luminosity. This gradual
increase is perfectly suitable for the gradual introduction of life
forms, in a sequence from primitive to advanced, upon a planet. If the
rate of increase were slightly greater, a runaway green house
effectc would be fell sometime between
the introduction of the primitive and the introduction of the advanced
life forms. If the rate of increase were slightly smaller, a runaway
freezingd of the oceans and lakes would occur.
Either way, the planet's temperature would become too extreme for
advanced life or even for the long-term survival of primitive life.

This list of sensitive constants is by no means complete. And yet it
demonstrates why a growing number of physicists and astronomers have
become convinced that the universe was not only divinely brought into
existence but also divinely designed. American astronomer George
Greenstein expresses his thoughts:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that
some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it
possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon
scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who
stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?11

The Earth as a Fit Habitat

It is not just the universe that bears evidence for design. The earth
itself reveals such evidence. Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, and Iosef Shklovsky
were among the first astronomers to concede this point when they attempted
to estimate the number planets in the universe with environments favorable
for the support of life. In the early 1960's they recognized that only a
certain kind of star with a planet just the right distance from that star
would provide the necessary conditions for life.12 On this
basis they made some rather optimistic estimates for the probability of
finding life elsewhere in the universe. Shklovsky and Sagan, for example,
claimed that 0.001 percent of all stars could have a planet upon which
advanced life resides.13

While their analysis was a step in the right direction, it
overestimated the range of permissible star types and the range of
permissible planetary distances. It also ignored many other
significant factors. A sample of parameters sensitive for the support of
life on a planet are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Evidence for the design of the sun-earth-moon system14 - 31

The following parameters cannot exceed certain limits without
disturbing the earth's capacity to support life. Some of these parameters
are more narrowly confining than others. For example, the first parameter
would eliminate only half the stars from candidacy for life-supporting
Systems, whereas parameters five, seven, and eight would each eliminate
more than ninety-nine in a hundred star-planet systems. Not only must the
parameters for life support fall within a certain restrictive range, but
they must remain relatively constant over time. And we know that several,
such as parameters fourteen through nineteen, are subject to potentially
catastrophic fluctuation. In addition to the parameters listed here, there
are others, such as the eccentricity of a planet's orbit, that have an
upper (or a lower) limit only.

1. number of star companions

if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary
orbits

if less than one: not enough heat produced for life

2. parent star birth date

if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable
burning phase

if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough
heavy elements

3. parent star age

if older: luminosity of star would not he sufficiently stable

if younger: luminosity of star would not be sufficiently
stable

4. parent star distance from center of galaxy

if greater: not enough heavy elements to make rocky planets

if less: stellar density and radiation would he too great

5. parent star mass

if greater: luminosity output from the star would not be
sufficiently stable

if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too
narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of
the right distance

6. parent star color

if redder: insufficient photosynthetic response

if bluer: insufficient photosynthetic response

7. surface gravity

if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain huge amounts of
ammonia and methane

if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water

8. distance from parent star

if farther away: too cool for a stable water cycle

if closer: too warm for a stable water cycle

9. thickness of crust

if thicker: too much oxygen would he transferred from the
atmosphere to the crust

if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great

10. rotation period

if longer: diurnal temperature differences would he too great

if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would he too great

11. gravitational interaction with a moon

if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and
rotational period would he too severe

if less: earth's orbital obliquity would change too much
causing climatic instabilities

12. magnetic field

if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe

if weaker: no protection from solar wind particles

13. axial tilt

if greater: surface temperature differences would be too
great

if less: surface temperature differences would he too great

14. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on
surface)

if greater: runaway ice age would develop

if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop

15. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

if larger: life functions would proceed too quickly

if smaller: life functions would proceed too slowly

16. carbon dioxide and water vapor levels in atmosphere

if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop

if less: insufficient greenhouse effect

17. ozone level in atmosphere

if greater: surface temperatures would become too low

if less: surface temperatures would he too high; too much uv
radiation at surface

18. atmospheric electric discharge rate

if greater: too much fire destruction

if less: too little nitrogen fixing in the soil

19. seismic activity

if greater: destruction of too many life-forms

if less: nutrients on ocean floors would not be uplifted

About a dozen other parameters, such as atmospheric chemical
composition, currently are being researched for their sensitivity in the
support of life. However, the nineteen listed in Table 1 in themselves
lead safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a
trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of
sustaining life. Considering that the universe contains only about a
trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars,e we can see that not even one planet would
be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary
conditions to sustain life.f No wonder Robert Rood and James Trefil14 and others
have surmised that intelligent physical life exists only on the earth. It
seems abundantly clear that the earth, too, in addition to the universe,
has experienced divine design.

Man the Creator?

The growing evidence of design would seem to provide further convincing
support for the belief that the Creator-God of the Bible formed the
universe and the earth. Even Paul Davies concedes that "the impression of
design is overwhelming."32 There must
exist a designer. Yet, for whatever reasons, a few astrophysicists still
battle the conclusion. Perhaps the designer is not God. But, if the
designer is not God, who is? The alternative, some suggest, is man
himself.

The evidence proffered for man as the creator comes from an analogy to
delayed choice experiments in quantum mechanics. In such experiments it
appears that the observer can influence the outcome of quantum mechanical
events. With every quantum particle there is an associated wave. This wave
represents the probability of finding the particle at a particular point
in space. Before the particle is detected there is no specific knowledge
of its location—only a probability of where it might be. But, once the
particle has been detected, its exact location is known. in this sense,
the act of observation is said by some to give reality to the particle.
What is true for a quantum particle, they continue, may be true for the
universe at large.

American physicist John Wheeler sees the universe as a gigantic
feed-back loop.

The Universe [capitalized in the original] starts small at the big
bang, grows in size, gives rise to life and observers and observing
equipment. The observing equipment, in turn, through the elementary
quantum processes that terminate on it, takes part in giving tangible
"reality" to events that occurred long before there was any life
anywhere.33

In other words, the universe creates man, but man through his
observations of the universe brings the universe into real existence.
George Greenstein is more direct in positing that "the universe brought
forth life in order to exist ... that the very cosmos does not exist
unless observed."34 Here we find a reflection of the question
debated in freshmen philosophy classes across the land:

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to see it or hear
it, does it really fall?

Quantum mechanics merely shows us that in the micro world of particle
physics man is limited in his ability to measure quantum effects. Since
quantum entities at any moment have the potential or possibility of
behaving either as particles or waves, it is impossible, for example, to
accurately measure both the position and the momentum of a quantum entity
(the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). By choosing to determine the
position of the entity the human observer has thereby lost information
about its momentum.

It is not that the observer gives "reality" to the entity, but rather
the observer chooses what aspect of the reality of the entity he wishes to
discern. It is not that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle disproves the
principle of causality, but simply that the causality is hidden from human
investigation. The cause of the quantum effect is not lacking,
nor is it mysteriously linked to the human observation of the
effect after the fact.g

This misapplication of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is but one
defect in but one version of the new "observer-as-creator" propositions
derived from quantum physics. Some other flaws are summarized here:

Quantum mechanical limitations apply only to micro, not macro,
systems. The relative uncertainty approaches zero as the number of
quantum particles in the system increases. Therefore, what is true for a
quantum particle would not be true for the universe at large.

The time separation between a quantum event and its observed result
is always a relatively short one (at least for the analogies under
discussion). A multi-billion year time separation far from fits the
picture.

The arrow of time has never been observed to reverse, nor do we see
any traces of a reversal beyond the scope of our observations. Time and
causality move inexorably forward. Therefore, to suggest that human
activity now somehow can affect events billions of years in the past is
nothing short of absurd.

Intelligence, or personality, is not a factor in the observation of
quantum mechanical events. Photographic plates, for example, are
perfectly capable of performing observations.

Both relativity and the gauge theory of quantum mechanics, now
established beyond reasonable question by experimental evidence,37 state
that the correct description of nature is that in which the human
observer is irrelevant.

Science has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support the notion
that man created his universe.

Universe Becoming God?

In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, British astronomer John
Barrow and American mathematical physicist Frank Tipler,38 begin by
reviewing evidences for design of the universe, then go on to address
several radical versions of the anthropic principle, including Wheeler's
feed-back loop connection between mankind and the universe. Referring to
such theories as PAP (participatory anthropic principle), they propose,
instead, FAP (final anthropic principle).

In their FAP, the life that is now in the universe (and, according to
PAP, created the universe) will continue to evolve until it reaches a
state of totality that they call the Omega Point. At the Omega Point

Life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a
single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically
possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all
universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite
amount of information including all bits of knowledge which it is
logically possible to know.39

In a footnote they declare that "the totality of life at the Omega
Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!"40 Let me translate: the universe created
man, man created the universe, and together the universe and man in the
end will become the Almighty transcendent Creator. Martin Gardner gives
this evaluation of their idea:

What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP? In my
not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best called CRAP,
the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.41

In their persistent rejection of an eternal transcendent Creator,
cosmologists seem to be resorting to more and more absurd alternatives. An
exhortation from the Bible is appropriate, "See to it that no one takes
you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy."42

Insufficient Universe

It is clear that man is too limited to have created the universe. But,
it is also evident that the universe is too limited to have created man.
The universe contains no more than 1080
baryonsh and has been in existence for no more than
1018 seconds.

Compared to the inorganic systems comprising the universe, biological
systems are enormously complex. The genome (complete set of chromosomes
necessary for reproduction) of an E. coli bacterium has the
equivalent of about two million nucleotides. A single human cell contains
the equivalent of about six billion nucleotides. Moreover, unlike
inorganic systems, the sequence in which the individual components
are assembled is critical for the survival of biological systems. Also,
only amino acids with left handed configurations can be used in protein
synthesis, the amino acids can be joined only by peptide bonds, each amino
acid first must be activated by a specific enzyme, and multiple special
enzymes (enzymes themselves are enormously complex sequence-critical
molecules) are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before protein
synthesis can begin or end.

The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion orders of
magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000
times) too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural
processes.i These kinds of calculations have been done
by researchers, both non-theists and theists, in a variety of
disciplines.43-58

Invoking other universes cannot solve the problem. All such models
require that the additional universes remain totally out of contact with
one another, that is, their space-time manifolds cannot overlap. The only
explanation left to us to tell how living organisms received their highly
complex and ordered configurations is that an intelligent, transcendent
Creator personally infused this information.

An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have brought the universe
into existence. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed
the universe. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed
planet Earth. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed
life.

FOOTNOTES:

a. The strong nuclear force is actually much more
delicately balanced. An increase as small as two percent means that
protons would never form from quarks (particles that form the building
blocks of baryons and mesons). A similar decrease means that certain heavy
elements essential for life would be unstable.

b. Direct observations of proton decay have yet to be
confirmed. Experiments simply reveal that the average proton lifetime must
exceed 1032 years.9 However, if the average proton lifetime
exceeds about 1034 years, than there would
be no physical means for generating the matter that is observed in the
universe.

c. An example of the greenhouse effect is a locked car
parked in the sun. Visible light from the sun passes easily through the
windows of the car, is absorbed by the interior, and reradiated as
infrared light. But, the windows will not permit the passage of infrared
radiation. Hence, heat accumulates in the car's interior. Carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere works like the windows of a car. The early earth had
much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere. However, the first plants
extracted this carbon dioxide and released oxygen. Hence, the increase in
the sun's luminosity was balanced off by the decrease in the greenhouse
effect caused by the lessened amount of carbon dioxide In the atmosphere.

d. A runaway freezing would occur because snow and ice
reflect better than other materials on the surface of the earth. Less
solar energy is absorbed thereby lowering the surface temperature which in
turn creates more snow and ice.

e. The average number of planets per star is still
largely unknown. The latest research suggests that only bachelor stars
with characteristics similar to those of the sun may possess planets.
Regardless, all researchers agree that the figure is certainly much less
than one planet per star.

f. The assumption is that all life is based on carbon.
Silicon and boron at one time were considered candidates for alternate
life chemistries. However, silicon can sustain amino acid chains no more
than a hundred such molecules long. Boron allows a little more complexity
but has the disadvantage of not being very abundant in the universe.

g. One can easily get the impression from the physics
literature that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the
only accepted philosophical explanation of what is going on in the micro
world. According to this school of thought, "1) There is no reality in the
absence of observation; 2) Observation creates reality." In addition to
the Copenhagen interpretation physicist Nick Herbert outlines and
critiques six different philosophical models for interpreting quantum
events.35 Physicist and theologian Stanley Jaki
outlines yet an eighth model.36 While a clear philosophical understanding
of quantum reality is not yet agreed upon. physicists do agree on the
results one expects from quantum events.

h. Baryons are protons and other fundamental particles,
such as neutrons, that decay into protons.

i. A common rebuttal is that not all amino acids in
organic molecules must be strictly sequenced. One can destroy or randomly
replace about 1 amino acid out of 100 without doing damage to the function
of the molecule. This is vital since life necessarily exists in a
sequence—disrupting radiation environment. However, this is equivalent to
writing a computer program that will tolerate the destruction of 1
statement of code out of 1001. In other words, this error-handling ability
of organic molecules constitutes a far more unlikely occurrence than
strictly sequenced molecules.

REFERENCES

Wheeler, John A. "Foreword," in The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler.
(Oxford, U. K.: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. vii.

Franz, Marie-Louise. Patterns of Creativity
Mirrored in Creation Myths. (Zurich: Spring, 1972).

Kilzhaher, Albert R. Myths, Fables, and Folktales.
New York: Holt, 1974), pp.113-114.

Dirac, P. A. M. "The Cosmological Constants," in
Nature 139. (1937), p.323.

Dicke, Robert H. "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's
Principle," in Nature, 192. (1961), pp.440-441.

Guth, Alan H. "Inflationary Universe: A Possible
Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems," in Physical Review
D, 23. (1981), p.348.

Carr, B. J. and Rees, M. J. "The Anthropic Principle
and the Structure of the Physical World," in Nature 278. (1979),
p.610.

Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J. The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle. New York: Oxford University Press, (1986),
pp.401-402.

Trefil, James S. The Moment of Creation: Big Bang
Physics from Before the First Millisecond to the Present Universe.
New York: Scribner's Sons, (1983), pp.141-142.

Hoyle, Fred. "The Universe: Past and Present
Reflections," in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20.
(1982), p.16.

Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic, Universe: Life
and Mind in the Cosmos. (New York: William Morrow, (1988), pp.
26-27.

Shklovskii, I.S. and Sagan. Carl. Intelligent Life
in the Universe. (San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1966), pp. 343-350.

Ibid., pp.413.

Rood, Robert T. and Treffi, James S. Are We Alone?
The Possibility of Extraterrestrial Civilizations. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1983).

Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J. The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986),
pp. 510-575.

Anderson, Don L. "The Earth as a Planet: Paradigms
and Paradoxes," in Science, 223. (1984), pp.347-355.

Campbell, I. H. and Taylor, S. R. "No Water, No
Granite - No Oceans, No Continents," in Geophysical Research
Letters, 10. (1983), pp.1061-1064.

Carter, Brandon. "The Anthropic Principle and Its
Implications for Biological Evolution," in Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 310. (1983), pp.352-363.

Hammond, Allen H. "The Uniqueness of the Earth’s
Climate," in Science, 187. (1975), p.245.

Toon, Owen B. and Olson, Steve. "The Warm Earth," in
Science 85, October. (1985), pp. 50-57.

Gale, George. "The Anthropic Principle," in
Scientific American, 245, No.6. (1981), pp. 154-17l.

Ross, Hugh. Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective.
Pasadena, California: Reasons to Believe, (1983), pp. 6-7.

Cottrell, Ron. The Remarkable Spaceship Earth.
(Denver, Colorado: Accent Books, 1982).

Ter Harr, D. "On the Origin of the Solar System," in
Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 5. pp.267-278.

Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic Universe: Life
and Mind in the Cosmos. (New York: William Morrow, (1988), pp.68-97.

Templeton, John M. "God Reveals Himself in the
Astronomical and in the Infinitesimal," in Journal of the American
Scientific Affiliation, December 1984. (1984), pp. 196-198.

Hart, Michael H. "The Evolution of the Atmosphere of
the Earth," in Icarus, 33. (1978), pp.23-39.

Hart, Michael H. "Habitable Zones about Main Sequence
Stars," in Icarus, 37. (1979), pp.351-357.

Owen, Tobias, Cess, Robert D., and Ramanathan, V.
"Enhanced CO2 Greenhouse to Compensate
for Reduced Solar Luminosity on Early Earth," in Nature, 277.
(1979), pp. 640-641.

Ward, William R. "Comments on the Long-Term Stability
of the Earth's Obliquity," in Icarus, 50. (1982), pp.444-448.

Gubbin, John. "The Origin of Life: Earth's Lucky
Break," in Science Digest, May1983. (1983), pp. 36-102.

Davies, Paul. The Cosmic Blueprint: New
Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1988), p.203.

Wheeler, John Archibald "Bohr, Einstein, and the
Strange Lesson of the Quantum," in Mind in Nature. Edited by
Richard Q. Elvee. (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), p.18.

Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic Universe: Life
and Mind in the Cosmos. (New York: William Morrow, (1988), p 223.

Herbert, Nick: Quantum Reality: Beyond the New
Physics An Excursion into Metaphysics and the Meaning of Reality.
(New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1987), in particular pp.16-29.

Jaki, Stanley L. Cosmos and Creator.
(Edinburgh, U. K : Scottish Academic Press, 1980), pp. 96-98.

Trefil, James S. The Moment of Creation. (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983), pp.91-101.

Barrow, John D and Tipler, Frank J. The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle. (New York: Oxford University Press, (1986).

Ibid., p.677.

Ibid., pp.677, 682.

Gardner, Martin. "WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP." in The
New York Review of Books, 23, May 8, 1986, No.8. (1986), pp. 22-25.

The Holy Bible New International Version.
Colossians 2:8.

Yockey, Hubert P. "On the Information Content of
Cytochrome c," in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67. (1977),
pp.345-376.

Yockey, Hubert P. "An Application of Information
Theory to the Central Dogma and Sequence Hypothesis," in Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 46 (1974), pp.369-406.

Yockey, Hubert P. "Self Organization Origin of Life
Scenarios and Information Theory," in Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 91 (1981), pp.13-31.

Lake, James A. "Evolving Ribosome Structure: Domains
in Archaebacteria, Eubacteria, Eocytes, and Eukaryotes," in Annual
Review of Biochemistry, 54. (1985), pp.507-530.

Dufton, M. J. "Genetic Code Redundancy and the
Evolutionary Stability of Protein Secondary Structure," m Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 116. (1985), pp.343-348.

Yockey, Hubert P. "Do Overlapping Genes Violate
Molecular Biology and the Theory of Evolution," in Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 80. (1979), pp.21-26.

Abelson, John. "RNA Processing and the Intervening
Sequence Problem," in Annual Review of Biochemistry, 48. (1979),
pp.1035-1069.

Hinegardner, Ralph T. and Engleberg, Joseph.
"Rationale for a Universal Genetic Code," in Science, 142.
(1963), pp.1083-1085.

Neurath, Hans. "Protein Structure and Enzyme Action,"
in Reviews of Modern Physics, 31. (1959), pp. 185-190.

Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe. Evolution From
Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism. (New York Simon and Schuster,
1981), 14-97.

Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L., and Olsen,
Roger. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories.
(New York: Philosophical Library, 1984).

Shapiro, Robert. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the
Creation of Life on Earth. New York: Summit Books, (1986), 117-131.

Ross, Hugh. Genesis One. A Scientific Perspective,
second edition (Pasadena, California: Reasons to Believe, 1983),
pp.9-10.

Yockey, Hubert P. "A Calculation of the Probability
of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," in Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 67. (1977), pp.377-398

Duley, W. W. "Evidence Against Biological Grains in
the Interstellar Medium," in Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 25. (1984), pp.109 113.

Kok, Randall A., Taylor John A., and Bradley Walter
L. A Statistical Examination of Self-Ordering of Amino Acids in
Proteins,' in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 18.
(1988), pp. 135-142.

How to Print,
Download, and More Help ...
Home | About Us | Events | F.F.F. | Donate | RTB
Radio | Web Store | Resources |
FAQs

Kids
Space | Worldwide | Contact Us | Search
RTB Conference

© 1988-2003 Reasons To Believe, Glendora,
CA, All Rights Reserved
No content from this site may be physically
kept on any other Web site without the express written permission of
Reasons To Believe.