Responses To Anthropic Coincidences

Written by Jimmy H. Davis and Harry L. Poe

This is the third in a series of articles covering the anthropic principle, and is an excerpt from Designer Universe by Davis and Poe.

The responses to evidence pointing to a created universe, a fine-tuned universe, and an uncommon earth depend upon one's worldview. In general the responses fall into two categories. Some observers regard the universe as the result of purely materialistic processes. Others believe the universe is the result of intelligent design.

Materialistic Processes Responses

Scientists who propose materialistic processes to explain the structure of the universe in many cases do not deny that the universe appears to be designed. Nonetheless, they not only deny that God was the designer; they deny that there is any designer. As astrophysicist George Greenstein states:

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?...A heady prospect. Unfortunately I believe it to be illusory....I believe that the discoveries of science are not capable of proving God's existence—not now, not ever. And more than that: I believe that reference to God will never suffice to explain a single one of these discoveries. God is not an explanation. {1}

The following responses cover the range of materialistic explanations for the structure of the universe and the existence of intelligent life. We will divide the materialist responses into two classes: Anthropic Principles and non-Anthropic responses. Since the word anthropic means "of or related to human beings," the Anthropic Principles attempt to give a materialistic reason for the existence of humans. There are at least four Anthropic Principles: Weak, Strong, Participatory, and Final. Non-Anthropic responses attempt to provide materialistic explanations for the structure of the universe without the special emphasis on humans.

Accident of observation. This argument states that because we exist the universe must be so constructed to support life. Many unlikely (low probability) events had to have occurred or we would not be here. Maybe it was just incredible luck that the universe happened to have the right conditions for life. This argument states that just like someone wins the lottery even though the odds are very small, a universe that supports life occurred even though its odds of occurring were very small. This argument is called the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP).

The Weak Anthropic Principle is a tautology; it states the obvious. If the universe was not fit for life, then we would not be here. Which is a larger act of faith, believing that the God of the Bible designed the universe or that the universe is the surprise result of a series of chance events?

Many-Possible-Worlds. Some scientists go beyond the tautology of the Weak Anthropic Principle to state that the universe must have those properties that allow life to occur. This latter statement is called the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP). What material process can make these properties to be present? One explanation is to evoke the existence of multiple worlds (universes). One way to deal with the previously discussed very small probabilities is to propose billions of universes with our universe being the one with life. One version of the Many-Possible-Worlds proposal is to assume that the multiple universes followed one another in time. Billions of Big Bangs would be followed by expansion, then contraction to a Big Crunch, to be followed by another Big Bang and so forth. Each Big Bang-Big Crunch sequence represents one universe with its unique set of parameters. We exist in the universe that supports life. As we saw in chapter 3, David Hume proposed a similar theory in the eighteenth century.

Another version of the Many-Possible-Worlds proposal is to assume that billions of "universes" exist simultaneously. Because the word universe means the totality of things, these multiple "universes" are sometimes called multiple "worlds" and other times are labeled "miniuniverses" in a "superuniverse." There are at least three flavors to the simultaneous Many-Possible-Worlds proposal. Two of the flavors arise from the inflationary Big Bang model with the third arising from quantum mechanics. During the time period discussed in the "Multiple Dimensions of Space" section, energy-matter fluctuations could have formed "bubbles" that individually inflated into miniuniverses. One flavor proposes that these miniuniverses are stacked one on top of the other in the multidimensions of space. Currently there would be no way to communicate between these miniuniverses. Recent interpretations of String Theory support this view. Another flavor proposes that these bubbles inflated into domains within one universe. Each domain would have its own set of properties. Our domain would be what we consider the universe. These domains are so far apart that again there is no communication between them. One interpretation of quantum mechanics is that every time a quantum event occurs the universe is split. Since there are billions of atoms and because all atomic and subatomic events are quantum events, this flavor would result in zillions and zillions of universes. To someone with a materialistic worldview, all three of these flavors do furnish enough universes to provide enough chances for our universe and life to occur.

The burden of proof resides on those making the Many-Possible-Worlds proposals. How scientific is a proposal that cannot be tested? If there is no way to detect the other worlds, how scientific is this proposal? As Martin Gardner states, "The many-worlds interpretation has been called a beautiful theory that nobody can believe."{2}

Man the creator. This proposal states that observers are needed to bring the universe into existence and is called the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP). The PAP also grows from an interpretation of quantum mechanics that states that the act of observing creates the reality; by choosing to observe the wave properties of the electron, the observer causes the electron to be a wave rather than a particle. A proponent of this interpretation of quantum mechanics as well as of the Participatory Anthropic Principle is the physicist John A. Wheeler. Wheeler states, "The Universe 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."{3} (Note that Wheeler capitalizes the word universe in his text.)

There are several concerns with PAP. Quantum events are at the heart of Wheeler's PAP. Yet quantum mechanics deals with micro not macro systems. The uncertainty of a quantum event approaches zero as the number of particles increases. The uncertainty involved in observing an electron would not be the same as that for the universe. Intelligence is not an exclusive factor in observing quantum events. Cloud chambers, Geiger counters, and photographic plates can record quantum events. Also, there are minds other than the human mind. Could a moth observe the moon and give it reality?

Creation of God. The Participatory Anthropic Principle is extended by the astronomer John Barrow and physicist Frank Tipler to what they call the Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): Intelligence must come into existence, and once it does it can never die out. They believe that life will spread beyond the earth to colonize all of space and to keep the universe from destroying itself and life. Using the terminology of the Roman Catholic paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin, Barrow and Tipler state, "At the instant the Omega Point is reached, 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. And this is the end."{4}

In a note to this text, Barrow and Tipler state, "A modernday theologian might wish to say that the totality of life at the Omega Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!"{5} Thus, Barrow and Tipler are saying God does not exist now but that all of life is evolving into God.

The popular science writer Martin Gardner offers this evaluation of Barrow and Tipler's work: "What should we 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."{6} By rejecting the notion of an eternal, transcendent Creator God, materialists have to propose more and more irrational options. As the Bible says, "See to it no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy" (Col. 2:8a).

Inflexible fundamental constants. Not all who express a materialistic response agree with the Anthropic Principles. They would criticize the anthropic folks for putting a special emphasis on humans. One response is to use the Many-Possible-Worlds proposal to suggest that this is the only universe where life probably occurred. They further criticize the Anthropic Principles by saying that the fundamental constants have no choice in their values. They agree with Einstein when he said, "There are no arbitrary constants.... Nature is so constructed that it is possible logically to lay down such strongly determined laws that within these laws only...completely determined constants occur."{7} Scientists who hold this view are encouraged by the work of those trying to understand the earliest part of the Big Bang Theory: "The Grand Unified Theories" (GUT) have attempted to model the time in the early universe when the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces were combined. The GUT results imply that the values of the electromagnetic force and the strong nuclear force are linked. If true, the values of these forces could not be individually fine-tuned. As we have previously discussed, String Theory is another attempt to understand the early universe. As the anthropic critic, physicist Gordon Kane says, "If the theory is right there will be no [room] to vary any of the constants the anthropic people like to vary."{8} So far, however, String Theory has not predicted the value of any of the constants: "If string theory pins down every physical constant, then the fine-tuning for life will turn out to be hard-wired into the mathematics."{9} Thus, design is not removed; design just moves from the constants to the underlying laws. The designer is still in the equations.

Observations. The Anthropic Principles seem to be proposing a "mystic" design without a designer. Is it scientific to believe that the future designs the past? It is amazing how the Many-Possible-Worlds model is becoming the materialistic response of choice. One sees it in popular magazines, such as National Geographic. The very vocal critics of design invoke the Many-Possible-Worlds model to say here is a "scientific" alternative to design. This model may feel good to the materialists, but it is not "scientific" if there is no way to falsify this model.

References:

1. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos (New York: William Morrow, 1988), 27-28.
2. Martin Gardner, "WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP" The New York Times Review of Books (May 8, 1986), 23.
3. John Archibald Wheeler, "Bohr, Einstein, and the Strange Lesson of the Quantum," in Mind in Nature, ed. Richard Q. Elvee (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), 18.
4. John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 677.
5. Ibid., 682.
6. Gardner, 25.
7. Quoted in Heinz R. Pagels, "A Cozy Cosmology," The Sciences (March/April 1985), 37.
8. Quoted in Marcus Chown, "Out in the Cold," New Scientist 166 (2000): 32.
9. Ibid.

© 2008 LifeWay Christian Resources

Share your thoughts with other readers:  Post Comments   Rate this Article