Teleology - A Case for Intelligent Design - Part 2
Continued from "Teleology - A Case for Intelligent Design - Part 1"
Faced with these astronomical odds, Naturalists such as physicist Stephen Hawking have propose the idea of a “multiverse.”[10] This hypothesis suggests our universe is one of many universes. With enough chances, eventually a universe would be fine-tuned for life to exist. It would be as if “our universe won a cosmic lottery.”[11] For a vast number of universes to exist, there must be a universe generator. This generator has continually adjusted the tuning of physics resulting in infinite variations of universes. A generator has yet to be discovered, but theoretical physicist Lee Smolin suggests a hypothetical concept that black holes produce new universes with variations of natural laws. Dembski explains “This entirely ad hoc metaphysical assumption then provides variation. Selection is imposed by the suggestion that anthropic universes are particularly apt to generate many black holes and so come to dominate the supercosmic evolutionary process.”[12] The idea of black holes being the agent of universe creation is creatively scientific, but holds no proof.
Professor Robbin
Collins, highlights three examples, out of over thirty, of evidence for
fine-tuning.[1] First, there is production of oxygen and
carbon in the stars. The astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle said, “I do not believe
that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference
that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to
the consequences they produce inside stars.”[2] Physicist Heinz Oberhummer and fellow
scientists recently discovered that only a one percent change of strong nuclear
force would create a thirty-to a thousand-fold influence on the creation of
carbon and oxygen in stars. Oberhummer explains, “Stars provide the carbon and
oxygen needed for life on planets, if you throw that off balance, conditions in
the universe would be much less optimal for the existence of life.”[3]
Second is gravity. If the fine tuning of the universe were like a ruler spanning the galaxy, marked in inch long increments, there would be billions of inches for tuning. These inches control the strength of gravity, the weakest force, and the strongest force is the strong nuclear force that glues protons and neutrons together inside nuclei. If you moved the dial from our present fine tuning to one inch left or right, the results would be catastrophic. Any animals the size of a human or smaller would be crushed flat. Astrophysicist Martin Rees said, "In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger."[4] The force of gravity also determines the kinds of stars that exist. If the force were slightly stronger, stars would be more massive than the sun by at a minimum of 1.4 times. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross notes, “These large stars important in that they alone manufacture elements heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium.”[5] These elements are vital for the formation of planets and all living things, but stars of this caliber burn too fast and inconsistently to preserve life-supporting planets. If the force were reduced, the stars’ mass would be 0.8 times that of the sun. “Though such stars burn long enough and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting planets, there would be no heavy elements for building such planets or life, itself.”[6]
Last is the strong nuclear force. The strong nuclear force binds the particles
in the nucleus of an atom. If the nuclear force were decreased by fifty
percent, which is minuscule – “one part in ten thousand billion billion billion
billion, compared to the total range of force strengths,” the repulsive force
of positive charged protons would destroy all atoms, except hydrogen inside atomic
nuclei.[7] If the force were stronger, binding
would be stronger and more common. Ross determines, “Not only would hydrogen (a
bachelor nuclear particle) 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.”[8] According to Craig, the combined
evidence of static nature of cosmology and the force of gravity, the
unimaginative odds of fine tuning would be “one part in a hundred million
trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.”[9]Second is gravity. If the fine tuning of the universe were like a ruler spanning the galaxy, marked in inch long increments, there would be billions of inches for tuning. These inches control the strength of gravity, the weakest force, and the strongest force is the strong nuclear force that glues protons and neutrons together inside nuclei. If you moved the dial from our present fine tuning to one inch left or right, the results would be catastrophic. Any animals the size of a human or smaller would be crushed flat. Astrophysicist Martin Rees said, "In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger."[4] The force of gravity also determines the kinds of stars that exist. If the force were slightly stronger, stars would be more massive than the sun by at a minimum of 1.4 times. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross notes, “These large stars important in that they alone manufacture elements heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements heavier than beryllium to the interstellar medium.”[5] These elements are vital for the formation of planets and all living things, but stars of this caliber burn too fast and inconsistently to preserve life-supporting planets. If the force were reduced, the stars’ mass would be 0.8 times that of the sun. “Though such stars burn long enough and evenly enough to maintain life-supporting planets, there would be no heavy elements for building such planets or life, itself.”[6]
Faced with these astronomical odds, Naturalists such as physicist Stephen Hawking have propose the idea of a “multiverse.”[10] This hypothesis suggests our universe is one of many universes. With enough chances, eventually a universe would be fine-tuned for life to exist. It would be as if “our universe won a cosmic lottery.”[11] For a vast number of universes to exist, there must be a universe generator. This generator has continually adjusted the tuning of physics resulting in infinite variations of universes. A generator has yet to be discovered, but theoretical physicist Lee Smolin suggests a hypothetical concept that black holes produce new universes with variations of natural laws. Dembski explains “This entirely ad hoc metaphysical assumption then provides variation. Selection is imposed by the suggestion that anthropic universes are particularly apt to generate many black holes and so come to dominate the supercosmic evolutionary process.”[12] The idea of black holes being the agent of universe creation is creatively scientific, but holds no proof.
Unfortunately
for Smolin and Hawking, there is no physical evidence to support this theory of
infinite universes. We know only of our own. According to the cofounder of
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Casey Luskin, currently there is no
way to detect other universes. It infringed on Occam’s razor, which warns
against making superfluous assumptions.[13] Hawking’s colleague, Roger Penrose, contends
the multiverse hypothesis is “impotent” and “misconceived.”[14] Nobel
laureate Arno Penzias concludes “Some people are uncomfortable with the
purposefully created world. To come up with things that contradict purpose,
they tend to speculate about things they haven’t seen.”[15]
Conclusion
It is evident that science has uncovered much evidence supporting ID. Teleology shows
us that our universe is fine-tuned so specifically that the tiniest adjustment
would end life on Earth. Just like a TV that hangs on the wall has the
signature of an intelligent designer, how much more does the universe, our
Earth, and the living creatures on it display and demand an intelligent
designer. Even Stephen Hawking once suggested that “It would be very difficult
to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an
act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”[16] Amen!
[1] Strobel., 131-132.
[2] Ibid., 127.
[3] Ibid., 131.
[4] Ibid., 131-132.
[5] Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God
(Orange, California: Promise Publishing, 1999),121.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Strobel, 134.
[8] Ross, 122.
[9] Strobel, 134.
[10] Hank Hanegraaff, The Creation Answer
Book, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishing, 2012), 42.
[11] House, ed., 76.
[12] Dembski, 252.
[13] House, ed., 76.
[14] Hanegraaff, 42.
[15] Zacharias, 123.
[16] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of
Time, (New York: Bantam
Books, 1998), 126.
Comments
Post a Comment