The Design of the Cosmos Part 5: The Lunar Anthropic Principle / Intro to Our Solar System

I used to ask my daughter around the age of 1 or so, "Who made the moon?" She would answer, "God!" (I taught her well) This was before I learned just how fined tuned the moon must be for human life to be possible here on Earth.

Did you know that without the precise size and location of the moon, life on Earth would not be possible? For instance, science has discovered that the moon serves many purposes to support life on Earth. One such example is that it serves to stabilize the tilt of the Earth's rotation axis. Get this: If the moon's mass were only 2 percent larger (increase the radius of the moon by just 7 miles), then the tug of the enlarged moon's gravity would significantly pull the Earth's axial tilt out of balance (it's tilt is currently stable at a 23 degree angle) causing catastrophic climactic changes (decreases in rainfall and increases in life threatening temperature changes). (Al Gore eat your heart out)

However, if the mass of the moon were just 2 percent less (decrease the radius of the moon by just 7 miles) then the moon's gravity would be too weak to put brakes on the Earth's rotation rate, which in turn would mean that the Earth would rotate in just a few hours, instead of 24. The results of a faster rotation rate of the Earth would also be catastrophic for life, resulting in overwhelmingly frequent hurricanes and tornadoes, and with longer durations. While it's true that a slightly less massive moon would eventually slow the Earth's rotation rate, the time it would take would be considerably longer than the 4.5 billion year time window in which our Sun requires to enter into it's most stable burning phase, (which begins when the Sun is about 4.5 billion years old - which is right now in human existence) and this would mean that the Sun's burning phase would be unstable, also making life impossible on Earth.

So, what do you think? Do you think the moon's size and location as beneficial to life on Earth is just a lucky, random chance event or coincidence? Or, is it more plausible to think that an intelligent Agent (God) fine tuned it for our benefit? Before you answer, consider the way that scientists now believe how the moon was formed in the first place.

According to the latest scientific theory called the Giant Impact Hypothesis, the moon was formed from a just right mars sized object which struck the young Earth at just the right velocity and at just the right angle, crashing into the Earth and blowing away the thick early Earth atmosphere (see verse 9 of Job 38 which describes the very thick early Earth atmosphere, so thick that from the vantage point of an observer on the surface of the Earth, the observer would experience darkness) and replacing it with an atmosphere thin enough for light to pass through (see Genesis 1 verses 2 and 3 where the once thick atmosphere of the Earth is changed to allow for the first time light to reach the surface - note the frame of reference is of that of an observer on the Earth's surface). The resulting debris field from the impact coalesced to form the moon. Here's a section from Hugh Ross's book, "Creation As Science": (page 111)

"Most of the time, a major crash constitutes a catastrophe. But one gigantic collision proved just the opposite. When primordial Earth was only 30 to 50 million years old, a planet between 11 and 14 percent the mass of Earth (for comparison's sake, Mars = 0.107 Earth masses) smashed into Earth at a 45 degree angle. The speed of the planet upon impact was surprisingly slow (less than 4 kilometers per second). This astonishing crash:

• Replaced Earth's thick, suffocating atmosphere with one thin enough (about 100 times thinner) for light to pass through. The new atmosphere had the just right chemical composition to foster life's existence.
• Boosted the mass and density of the Earth just enough to allow Earth's gravity to retain a large, but not too large, quantity of water vapor for billions of years.
• Raised the amount of iron in Earth's core closer to the level needed to provide Earth with a strong and enduring magnetic field. This magnetic field shield's life from deadly cosmic rays and solar X-rays.
• Delivered to Earth's core and mantle quantities of iron and other associated elements in the just right ratios to produce sufficiently long lasting, continent building plate tectonics. (Earth began without any continents) Plate tectonics also play a crucial role in compensating for the Sun's increasing brightness so that life can be sustained on Earth for billions of years.
• Increased the iron content of Earth's crust in a way that permits a huge abundance of ocean life that in turn supports advanced land life. (see Genesis 1:20)
• Played a major role in salting Earth's interior with an abundance of long lasting radioisotopes, the heat from which drives most of the Earth's tectonic activity and volcanism.
• Gradually slowed Earth's rotation rate so that a wide variety of lower life forms could survive long enough to provide the resources needed for the existence of advanced life forms. This slowing was also directly significant to advanced life, which cannot survive the high wind velocities of a more rapid rotation rate. (due to the creation of Earth's moon as a result of the impact)
• Stabilized the tilt of Earth's rotation axis, protecting the planet from rapid and extreme climatic variations." (due to the creation of Earth's moon as a result of the impact)

He goes on to state that each of these beneficial results of the impact made conditions for the possibility of advanced life far more favorable.

Now, with all of that said, now I want you to ask yourself the same question as before. Was the formation and fine tuning of the moon to make life on Earth possible just a product of random chance, coincidence, or the result of carefully orchestrated engineering by an incredibly intelligent, powerful, Agent?

If you answered an intelligent Agent, what if I could show you that the Bible's various creation accounts match the most recent scientific accounts of the creation of the universe, Earth, moon and life on Earth? Wouldn't that mean that the Bible is true and trustworthy?

I love in Genesis 1 and Job 38, the exact conditions of the early Earth are described in detail and match what science has discovered some 3000 years later. See the references for yourself above.

Well, I'm out of time - I was going to introduce you to the Solar System today but I'll save that for next time.

Until then, have a great and Merry Christmas!

Cheers

Tom

The Design of the Cosmos Part 4: The Anthropic Principle Inequality

To plan the average wedding, it takes usually over one year of preparation to get ready for an event that lasts a very short length of time by comparison. Often, there is also a great amount of money spent for an event that lasts usually less than 5 hours. But no one would consider such an effort of planning, coordinating, and preparation and expense a waste. Why? It's because the wedding ceremony is of such a high purpose both for those getting married, and for the ones who love those who are getting married.

It's the same way with the universe and human life on planet Earth. Let me explain. Brandon Carter, a British mathematician, in 1983 introduced what he termed the "anthropic principle inequality" to the scientific community. His idea was that a minimum of several billion years or so is required to prepare a place for advanced life, yet that advanced life can only exist for a few million years, an obvious inequality. Here's what Hugh Ross has to say about this inequality from page 113 of his book, "Why the Universe is the Way it is?"

"Carter took note of the fact that several billion years is the minimum time required for the existence of the human race or a similarly advanced species. Yet, according to his calculations, the maximum time window in which the cosmos can possibly sustain such a species amounts to less than a few million years. In other words, it took a very long time to prepare the universe to sustain humans for a relatively short time."

Since Carter's discovery in 1983, Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler in 1986 showed that the amount of time that an advanced civilization can be sustained is much, much less. Dr. Ross writes;

"They estimated that global human civilization - something more than just a few low-population groups existing in one or two regions using Stone Age - type tools - could last no more than 41,000 years. According to their calculations, this limit would apply to any physical intelligent species with a sophisticated global civilization living anywhere in the universe."

Here are some of the characteristics of the universe which Barrow and Tipler noted in their work which all contribute to this short duration for the existence and survival of the human race or any advanced life:

• The laws of physics (especially the 2nd law of thermodynamics-the running down of energy in the universe to an eventual state of unconsciousness in the entirety of the universe, which includes life on Earth)
• The characteristics of the universe (especially the expansion rate or "dark energy" of the universe - which will increase at a faster and faster rate, with the cosmic expansion ultimately being so rapid that all intelligent life anywhere in the universe will lose the ability to draw adequate energy for work from the heat flow of the universe; thus all metabolic reactions will cease, and therefore all life will not exist anywhere in the universe.
• The properties of life (temporal and not eternal)
• The Earth's rotation rate slows (disturbing the delicate 24 hour period advanced life on Earth requires/increasing inhospitable environmental changes/atmospheric changes detrimental to life on Earth)
• Fossil fuel supplies (will run out eventually)
• Solar stability (solar flares and radiation will increase with respect to time as the Sun becomes less and less stable, making conditions on Earth inhospitable for life)
• Solar luminosity (the sun will continuously brighten to a point where human life cannot survive under such luminosities)
• Plate tectonics (plate tectonic activity will continuously decline, dramatically impacting environmental conditions on Earth)
• Declining birthrates
• Increasing genetic disorders
• Environmental catastrophes (either from mankind or from a nearby supernova or other cosmic disasters)
• Socio-political upheaval

Here is an incredible article you can read for yourself a more in depth survey of this topic. The article is called, "The Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity". What I find most fascinating is that in this article, Dr. Ross states that most probably, the maximum time left for the human race to exist in an advanced state is something less than 20,000 years. Since human beings have existed on this planet for approximately 50,000 years since they first "appeared" on Earth, and since science has measured the universe to be approximately 13.7 billion years old, that means that the maximum survival time for human beings is one millionth of the time it took to prepare the universe and Earth for we human beings to reach an advanced civilized state.

This amount of preparation and fine tuning requirements within the universe to support advanced human life suggests very powerfully of the high purpose that we human beings must have been gifted from the Creator, for the amount of the inequality between the time necessary in preparation for conditions to be just right for us to the maximum time we can possibly exist is extreme.

Here are some excellent Bible verses which support these scientific discoveries of the fact that the universe, Earth, and human life on Earth will someday come to an end:

Psalm 102:25-26 (New International Version)

²⁵ In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.

²⁶ They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.

2 Peter 3:5-13 (New International Version)

⁵But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. ⁶By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. ⁷By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

⁸But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. ⁹The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

¹⁰But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

¹¹Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives ¹²as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.¹³But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

Please don't despair, for if you accept Christ's work on the cross and resurrection as payment for your sins, you have no need to despair. For God will create an entirely new "heavens and earth" as stated in Revelation 21:

Revelation 21

The New Jerusalem

¹Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. ²I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. ³And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ⁴He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

⁵He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

⁶He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. ⁷He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. ⁸But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

⁹One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." ¹⁰And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. ¹¹It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. ¹²It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. ¹³There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. ¹⁴The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

¹⁵The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. ¹⁶The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. ¹⁷He measured its wall and it was 144 cubits thick, by man's measurement, which the angel was using. ¹⁸The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. ¹⁹The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, ²⁰the fifth sardonyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. ²¹The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of pure gold, like transparent glass.

²²I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.²³The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. ²⁴The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. ²⁵On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. ²⁶The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. ²⁷Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

So, most of the evidence for a personal Creator and Savior of the universe is in. Your job is to evaluate the evidence, repent of your sin, and accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. If you do this, your salvation is certain, you have the gift of eternal life!

But don't take my word for it. Listen to the Apostle Paul:

Romans 3:23-30 (New International Version)

²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— ²⁶he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

²⁷Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. ²⁸For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.²⁹Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, ³⁰since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

And one more, listen here:

Romans 6:23 (New International Version)

²³For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So Jesus stands at the door of your heart and knocks - but He is a gentleman, and will not force himself upon you. He's waiting for you to open your heart, and if you do, He promises to come in and save you!!

We'll so much for my sermon! Please write to me if you have made a confession of faith - I can give you some advice as your start your journey of faith. If you live in the Capital region, I have a great church where you can begin. It's called Grace Fellowship of Latham. Go to the website to see what it's like at www.gracefellowship.com

Next time I plan on talking to you about the Lunar Anthropic Principle and the fine tuning of our Solar System to support life on Earth (but I've got to figure out a way to shorten the title!)

Cheers

Tom

The Design of the Cosmos Part 3: The Anthropic Principle

I want to thank you for your patience with my blog. I haven't posted in a while because of my rather intense school work this semester. I'm done with the current semester in a few weeks, so I hope to post more regularly over the Christmas break.

Here's a great quote from American astronomer George Greenstein:

"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 "

Isn't that a great quote! What a segue into my next topic: The Anthropic Principle.

The Anthropic Principle is an idea that the entire universe was programmed, or designed, for us in mind - that there are numerous instances of fine tuning of physical constants and conditions from the very beginning of the universe (at the Big Bang) so that advanced life would be able to build a high tech society (human beings of course).

Before I dig in to this topic, I want to back up a bit with a question for you. What do we mean by the "fine tuning design" of the universe?

Well, that's a good question. The answers vary depending on who you ask. For the evolutionary biologist, the answer may be given as "the appearance of design." For instance, check out this quote from Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA; "biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (from his autobiography, What Mad Pursuit)

Taking it further, what I am referring to when I talk about the fine tuning of the universe is the engineering of physical constants and conditions of the universe (and our galaxy, solar system, and planet Earth) to make advanced life (human life) possible.

Another scientist, physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University, developed something called the Anthropic Principle. According to Dr. Hugh Ross in his book, "More than a Theory", Dr. Dicke's discovery led to "the conclusion that the universe, Milky Way Galaxy, solar system, and Earth are all exquisitely fine-tuned so that human life can exist and flourish." pg 111.

Fine tuning is related to those properties of the universe which, if changed by even the slightest amount, would render the entire universe life prohibiting. In other words, if you change the values ever so slightly, no life would exist at any time and at any place within the entire universe.

Let me give you just one of many examples. We know that the universe has been expanding since it was created 13.73 billion years ago. If you could change the expansion rate of the universe by just 1 part in 10 to the 120th power, science has discovered that life would not be possible at any time or place in the history of the universe. Such stunning fine tuning is breathtaking. 1 in 10 to the 120th power is a number so small that it would be analogous to picking a red painted dime blindfolded in a stack of dimes the width of the united states stacked all the way up to the moon on the first try.

Why is the expansion rate so vital for life? Too rapid an expansion would mean that matter could not coalesce into galaxies, stars, and planets. Without galaxies, stars, and planets, life would have no place to live! Too slow an expansion and gravity would be strong in its capacity to put brakes on the expansion rate, and a recollapse of the universe would occur meaning that no solar type stars could settle into a stable burning phase, which is essential for life. How critical is the precise expansion rate? Change the value for the expansion rate of the universe by as little as 1 part in 10 to the 120th power, and you end up with a life prohibiting universe. Here is another excellent article by Hugh Ross, written 20 years ago but still valid, on the fine tuning characteristics of the universe titled: "Design and the Anthropic Principle." If you prefer, I also have for you an excellent audio clip from Dr. Ross on the Anthropic Principle from his book, "Why the Universe is the Way it is?"

Here is a list of fine tuning characteristics from the RTB website at http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe-aug-2006:

For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.¹ In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for hypernova eruptions
34. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for supernova eruptions
36. Number and types of supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38. Density of white dwarf binaries
39. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
41. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
42. Mass values for the active neutrinos
43. Number of different species of active neutrinos
44. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
45. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
46. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
47. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
48. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
49. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
50. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
51. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
52. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
53. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
54. Density of quasars
55. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
56. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
57. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
58. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
59. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
60. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
61. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
62. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
63. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
64. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
65. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
67. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
68. Flatness of universe's geometry
69. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
70. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71. Constancy of dark energy factors
72. Epoch for star formation peak
73. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
74. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
76. Level of charge-parity violation
77. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
78. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
79. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
80. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
81. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
82. Water's temperature of maximum density
83. Water's heat of fusion
84. Water's heat of vaporization
85. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
86. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
87. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
88. Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
89. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
90. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
91. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
92. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
93. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

What we're referring to when we say the universe has been "fine tuned" is that it's properties have been configured or engineered in advance so that life could be possible. You see, it's far more probable that a life prohibiting universe should exist, on purely non theistic grounds, than a life permitting one.

Don't believe me? Just ask physicist Freeman Dyson who comments, "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming." (from his work Disturbing the Universe page 250.) Or how about these comments from astrophysicist Paul Davies who states, "It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe...The impression of design is overwhelming." (from his article in Science Digest callede The Anthropic Principle, page 191.)

Remember I told you about Psalm 19? "The heavens declare the glory of God." God's glory can be seen from what He has made. Take a look at the night sky some evening on a clear night. Science now knows that all of those stars, even from the remotest parts of the universe, are necessary for our human life here on Earth. This is known as the mass-density of the universe. Change it by as much as 1 part in 10 to the 60th power, and you have a life prohibiting universe. This number is something akin to adding the mass of a dime to the universe causing it to be life prohibiting. Surely there must be a super intellect behind it all (God).

I'm going to pursue this topic further next time, with a topic titled "The Anthropic Principle Inequality." You'll be amazed at the amount of time the Creator took to prepare a fit habitat for humanity, and yet the maximum possible amount of time for humanity's existence in a civilized state is so small by comparison, that we get this Anthropic Principle Inequality.

Until then, may God bless you richly,

Tom

The Design of the Cosmos Part 2: Special Guest Blogger Dr. William Lane Craig

I am excited to introduce to you Dr. William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig accepted an invitation to post to Fingerprints of God, and will expose you to some excellent philosophy regarding the argument for the fine tuning of the universe: That the fact that the universe is fine tuned can only be explained by design.

Dr. Craig earned his PhD in philosophy from the University of Birmingham, and his DTheol from the University of Munich, Germany. He is currently research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He is also the founder of the Reasonable Faith website located at www.reasonablefaith.org. He has written numerous books and articles including Reasonable Faith, Hard Questions Real Answers, Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time, and Two Tasks of the Christian Scholar: Redeeming the Soul, Redeeming the Mind.

Dr. Craig also has debated many atheistic scholars at various prestigious universities throughout the world, and some of these debates can be heard at reasonablefaith.org. He also visited my hometown in 1993 and again in 2007 for debates and Q&A sessions at my local church, Grace Fellowship (www.gracefellowship.com) Here is one of my favorite debates featuring Dr. Craig on the topic of the Resurrection of Jesus.

It is my pleasure to turn the mic over to my special friend, Dr. William Lane Craig!

CHANCE AND THE ARGUMENT FROM FINE-TUNING

Here’s a very simple argument from fine-tuning for a Cosmic Designer:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity,

chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

This is a logically valid argument, whose conclusion follows necessarily from the two premises. So the only question is whether those premises are more plausibly true than false.

The first premise is unobjectionable because it just lists the three alternatives available for explaining the fine-tuning.

As for the second premise, the alternative of physical necessity seems fantastically implausible. It would require us to say that a life-prohibiting universe is a physical impossibility. Few are prepared to swallow that claim. So the debate has focused on the second alternative: could the fine-tuning be due simply to chance? According to this alternative, it’s just an accident that all of nature’s fundamental constants and quantities fell into the life-permitting range. We basically just lucked out!

The fundamental problem here is that the chances of a life-permitting universe’s existing are so remote that this alternative becomes unreasonable.

Sometimes people object that it’s meaningless to speak of the probability of a fine-tuned universe’s existing because there is, after all, only one universe. So you can’t say that 1 out of every 10 universes, for example, is life-permitting.

But the following illustration from the physicist John Barrow clarifies the sense in which a life-permitting universe is improbable. Take a sheet of paper and place upon it a red dot. That dot represents our universe. Now alter slightly one or more of the finely-tuned constants and physical quantities. As a result we have a description of another universe, which we can represent as a new dot in the neighborhood of the first. If that new set of constants and quantities describes a life-permitting universe, make it a red dot; if it describes a universe which is life-prohibiting, make it a blue dot. Now repeat the procedure over and over again until the sheet is filled with dots. What you wind up with is a sea of blue with only a few pin-points of red. That’s the sense in which it is overwhelmingly improbable that the universe should be life-permitting. There are simply vastly more life-prohibiting universes in our local area of possible universes than there are life-permitting universes.

Sometimes people will appeal to the example of a lottery in order to justify the chance alternative. In a lottery where all the tickets are sold, it’s fantastically improbable that any one person should win, yet somebody has to win! It would be unjustified for the winner, whoever he may be, to say, “The odds against my winning were 20 million to one. And yet I won! The lottery must have been rigged!”

In the same way, they say, some universe out of the range of possible universes has to exist. The winner of the universe lottery would also be unjustified to think that because his universe exists, this must have been the result of design, not chance. All the universes are equally improbable, but one of them, by chance, has to win.

This analogy is actually very helpful because it enables us to see clearly where the advocate of chance has misunderstood the fine-tuning argument and to offer a better, more accurate analogy in its place. Contrary to popular impression, the argument from fine-tuning is not trying to explain why this particular universe exists. Rather it’s trying to explain why a life-permitting universe exists. The lottery analogy was misconceived because it focused on why a particular person won.

The correct analogy would be a lottery in which billions and billions and billions of white ping pong balls were mixed together with just one black ping pong ball, and you were told that one ball will be randomly selected out of the horde. If it’s black, you’ll be allowed to live; if it’s white, you’ll be shot.

Now notice that any particular ball which is randomly selected is equally improbable: no matter which ball rolls down the chute, the odds against that particular ball are fantastically improbable. But some ball must roll down the chute. This is the point illustrated by the first lottery analogy. That point, however, is irrelevant because we’re not trying to explain why this particular ball was picked.

The relevant point is that whichever ball rolls down the chute, it is overwhelmingly more probable that it will be white rather than black. Getting the black ball is no more improbable than getting any particular white ball. But it is incomprehensibly more probable that you will get a white ball instead of a black one. So if the black ball rolls down the chute, you certainly should suspect that the lottery was rigged to let you live.

If you still don’t see the point of this analogy, then imagine that in order to be allowed to live, the black ball had to be randomly picked five times in a row. (If the odds against getting a black ball even once are great enough, happening five times rather than once won’t really affect the probabilities significantly.) If such a thing actually happened, everyone would recognize that it did not happen by chance.

So in the correct analogy, we’re not interested in why you got the particular ball you did. Rather we’re puzzled by why, against overwhelming odds, you got a life-permitting ball rather than a life-prohibiting ball. That question is just not addressed by saying, “Well, some ball had to be picked!”

In the same way, some universe has to exist, but whichever universe exists, it is incomprehensibly more probable that it will be life-prohibiting rather than life-permitting. So we still need some explanation why a life-permitting universe exists.

Some people have argued that no explanation is needed for why we observe a life-permitting universe because that’s the only kind of universe we can observe! If the universe were not life-permitting, then we wouldn’t be here to ask about it. (This is the so-called Anthropic Principle, which says that we can observe only properties of the universe which are compatible with our existence.)

This reasoning is fallacious. The fact that we can observe only life-permitting universes does nothing to eliminate the need of an explanation for why a life-permitting universe exists.

Again, an illustration can help. Imagine you’re traveling abroad and arrested on trumped-up drug charges. You’re dragged in front of a firing squad of one hundred trained marksmen standing at point blank range. You hear the command given, “Ready! Aim! Fire!”, and you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And then you observe that you’re still alive! That all of the one hundred marksmen missed! Now what would you conclude?

“Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that they all missed! After all, if they hadn’t all missed, I wouldn’t be here to be surprised about it! Nothing more to be explained here!”

Of course not! It’s true that you shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t observe that you’re dead, since if you were dead; you wouldn’t be able to observe it. But you should still be surprised that you do observe that you are alive, in light of the enormous improbability of the marksmen’s all missing. Indeed, you’d probably conclude that they all missed on purpose, that the whole thing was a set-up, engineered for some purpose by someone.

Theorists have therefore come to recognize that the Anthropic Principle cannot eliminate the need of an explanation of the fine-tuning unless it’s conjoined with a Many Worlds Hypothesis. According to that hypothesis, our universe is but one member of a World Ensemble or “multiverse” of randomly ordered universes, preferably infinite in number. If all of these other universes really exist, then by chance alone life-permitting worlds will appear somewhere in the World Ensemble. Since only finely-tuned universes have observers in them, any observers existing in the World Ensemble will naturally observe their worlds to be finely-tuned. So no appeal to design is necessary to explain fine-tuning. It’s pure chance.

One way to respond to the Many Worlds Hypothesis would be to show that the multiverse itself also involves fine-tuning. For in order to be scientifically credible, some plausible mechanism must be suggested for generating the many worlds. But if the Many Worlds Hypothesis is to be successful in attributing fine-tuning to chance alone, then the mechanism that generates the many worlds had better not be fine-tuned itself! For if it is, then the problem arises all over again.

But the proposed mechanisms for generating a World Ensemble are so vague that it’s far from evident that the physics governing the multiverse will be free of any fine-tuning. For example, if super-string theory, or M-Theory, is the physics of the multiverse, then it remains unexplained why exactly 11 dimensions exist, as the theory requires. And the mechanism that actualizes all the possible universes in the cosmic landscape may involve fine-tuning. So the postulate of a World Ensemble is by itself not enough to justify the alternative of chance.

Moreover, many theorists are sceptical of the Many Worlds Hypothesis itself. Why think that a World Ensemble actually exists? There’s no independent evidence that the sort of World Ensemble required by the Many Worlds Hypothesis actually exists. By contrast, we have good independent reasons for believing in a Designer of the cosmos, in the form of various versions of the cosmological argument.

Finally, the Many Worlds Hypothesis faces what may be a devastating objection. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has pressed this objection forcefully. He points out that the odds of our universe’s initial low entropy condition’s existing by chance alone are one chance out of 10^{10 (123)}. By contrast the odds of our solar system’s suddenly forming by the random collision of particles is one chance out of 10^{10 (60)}. This number, says Penrose, is “utter chicken feed” in comparison with 10^{10 (123)}. What that means is that it is far more likely that we should be observing an orderly universe no larger than our solar system, since a world of that size is so unfathomably more probable than a fine-tuned universe like ours.

In fact, a sort of illusionism results from the Many Worlds Hypothesis. A small world with the illusion of a wider cosmos is more probable than a real, finely-tuned universe. Carried to its logical extreme, this has led to what theorists have called “the invasion of the Boltzmann brains.” For the most probable observable universe is one which consists of a single brain which pops into existence by a random fluctuation with illusory perceptions of the external world! So if you accept the Many Worlds Hypothesis, you’re obligated to believe that you are all that exists and that your body, the earth, and everything you perceive in the world are just illusions.

No sane person believes that he is a Boltzmann brain. On atheism, therefore, it is highly improbable that there exists a randomly ordered World Ensemble. Ironically, the best hope for partisans of the multiverse is to maintain that God created it and ordered its worlds, so that they are not randomly ordered. God could give preference to observable worlds which are cosmically fine-tuned. To be rationally acceptable, the Many Worlds Hypothesis needs God.

With the failure of the Many Worlds Hypothesis, the last ring of defense for the alternative of chance collapses. Neither physical necessity nor chance provides a good explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe.

Thanks Dr. Craig! Keep up the great work! For another excellent talk on the origin of the universe, please click here to see Dr. Craig speak at Saddleback Church in California!

Next week I will talk about the Anthropic Principle and the Anthropic Principle Inequality.

Till then, enjoy.

Tom

The Design of the Cosmos Part 1: The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

What caused the universe? Or, do you believe that the universe just is, and has always existed? Which question fits your worldview? If the atheist is to be consistent, then he/she should believe that the universe is all there is and all that ever was; in other words, an honest atheist should believe in the eternality of matter and energy, time and space.

But is such a belief credible? The answer is a resounding no. Modern science has come to the conclusion that the universe began to exist a finite time ago (about 13.7 billion years ago) and that it was not created out of any existing materials; rather, it was created, "out of nothing", in an event known from science as the Big Bang. This happens to match perfectly the record of scripture as stated so many times in the bible - here are a few verses for you:

Genesis 1

The Beginning

¹ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The Hebrew translation for "heavens and earth", "shamayim" and "erets" is referring to the universe. whenever shamayim is used with the erets(earth), as in 1:1, the combination refers to the entire physical universe.

Here's another verse - Hebrews 11:3

Hebrews 11:3 (New International Version)

³By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

The fact that the Bible teaches that the universe was created out of nothing or creation ex nihilo, can be explained in greater detail in a work by Ken Samples, "Creation Ex Nihilo."

Such a belief that the universe has always existed surely cannot be credible for both philosophical and scientific reasons. I'm going to spend much of this week's and next week's topic on the philosophical reasons why the universe cannot be eternal, including an article written especially for this blog from a special friend of mine, Dr. William Lane Craig. Later on, I will write for you the scientific reasons why the universe must have begun to exist about 13.7 billion years ago.

Before I can show you evidence for design of the universe, I'd like to show you from philosophy that God exists and that He created the universe. For if He exists, then it would make sense that He is the sufficient causal agent of the Universe. Furthermore, if He exists and is the causal agent of the universe, then He must be non physical (immaterial or spiritual), He must transcend this universe that He created (ruling out the pantheistic world religions as true), and that He must be a personal being. We would then expect to find fine tuned design in the universe; the product of an intelligent mind.

Here's an excellent argument from the field of Philosophy: The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. It was developed by the Medieval Islamic Persian scholar Al-Ghazali. It goes something like this:

Premise 1: What ever begins to exist must have a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Premise 3: Therefore the universe has a cause.

Let's unpack each of the premises briefly.

Premise 1: What ever begins to exist must have a cause. I believe this is self explanatory and rather uncontroversial. In order to refute it, one must believe that it is normal for things to pop into existence uncaused. But surely this is implausible, simply from the vantage point of individual experience. For instance, we don't experience things "appearing" into existence out of nothing; As Dr. William Lane Craig likes to often state: "No one fears that suddenly, at this moment, though you might be away from home, a horse might appear suddenly from nowhere in your living room of your house and will soon begin defiling the carpet!" No, rather, out of nothing, nothing comes. Therefore, whatever begins to exist that didn't exist before, must have a cause for its coming into existence.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Here's where the real agitation may arise, although it can clearly be shown from philosophy and from science that Premise 2 is true. I will tackle the scientific evidence in a future blog, so for today, let's take a look at Premise 2 philosophically. If the universe did not begin to exist, then Premise 2 would be false, and the entire Kalam argument would go down in flames. But if that were to be true, that the universe has always existed, then that would mean that the universe is infinite - that is to say, that there would have been an actual infinite number of past events. But any mathematician will tell you that, from set theory, there is no such thing as an actual infinite number of things, but rather, only potential infinites exist. In other words, the infinite can only be described in terms of the potential (ex. adding one more thing) and not the actual, because infinity continues on forever, otherwise, it would not be infinite, but finite. But if it were true that the universe never began to exist, then that would mean that there have been an actual infinite number of past events, such that we would have had to traverse this actually infinite number of past events to get to this current event. But surely this is absurd, because we should have already reached this current event by now if we had indeed traversed an infinite number of past events. Indeed, if you go back billions of years, we still should have already reached this and any event in the past, which is also absurd. Even if you go back an infinite number of events, you'd have already reached the current event, which is also absurd. Therefore, the universe had to begin at some point in time in the past.

Science agrees with what is called, "the Big Bang Theory" which I will develop for you later. Not only must the universe have begun to exist a finite time ago, but time itself must have begun to exist at the big bang, at the beginning of the universe. Science also agrees with this, thanks to Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (which at first Einstein himself didn't agree with, so he added a "cosmological constant" to his theory to avoid the unavoidable conclusion that the universe had a beginning, since this would mean that the universe required a designer and a Creator, a concept he didn't like very much.)

Premise 3 follows logically and inescapably: "Therefore, the universe must have a cause." If the first 2 premises are true, it is inescapable that the universe had a cause for its coming into existence. Furthermore, this cause must be immaterial, or non physical, for if the cause were physical and came before the beginning, then it would not make any sense to speak of the beginning of the universe - the cause would be prior yet physical, which is absurd. In addition, the cause must be personal, because for the cause to be non personal and inanimate, such as abstract numbers like the number 7 for example, would be to say that non personal inanimate entities such as logic or numbers can be involved in causal relations, which is also absurd. No, only an infinite, uncaused, personal being with a will or mind can create or cause the universe to exist. Many atheists follow this argument with an argument of their own at this juncture, which goes something like this: "Then what or who caused God to exist." But look carefully at the first premise once more. It does not state that everything has a cause, but rather, only that anything that begins to exist has a cause, and since God is eternal and uncaused (and therefore never began to exist), God does not fit into this category. Therefore, the universe must have a cause, and this cause is the God of the Bible.

Here is an excellent video from Dr. Craig's website, www.reasonablefaith.org, on this very topic at a recent event at Saddleback Church, in California.

I hope you enjoy this series. Tune in next time as Dr. William Lane Craig graciously guest hosts on my blog! He will give more philosophical arguments for the fine tuning of the universe - after this, we will get into the scientific support for the design of the cosmos by Jesus Christ, Creator of the universe - as it so states throughout scripture:

The Supremacy of Christ

¹⁵He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

May God bless you richly - and please get out and enjoy this incredible weather!

Cheers

Tom

Guest Blogger: Dr. Matthew Mirabile, PhD

I promised you a few weeks back, that I'd have a friend of mine take over the microphone for a week on the topic of Creation vs. Evolution. Here's his latest work called "They Shot Themselves in the Foot", by Dr. Matthew Mirabile, PhD.

They Shot Themselves in the Foot. An Ongoing Critique of Current Trends in Darwinian Evolution.

Dr.Matthew Mirabile

9/5/09

The Christian Apologist G.K Chesterton once wrote that “falsehood is never so false as when it is very nearly true”. This statement accurately reflects most of the concepts and ideas that flow from the oral and written pronouncements of modern Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary apologists. They continuously edit and reinterpret the latest scientific findings to fit their secular worldview, and expect the public to accept them without question. In fact, those who dare to challenge them, whether utilizing science and/or biblical principles and findings, are deviously labeled as practitioners of “pseudo-science” and outdated religious mythology. Fortunately they continue to “shoot themselves in the foot”, since most of their “science” is based upon selective, misleading, and misinterpreted analysis of the actual data, be it geological, paleontological, genetic, or morphological convergence of similar physical characteristics. Consequently, a large percentage of their evidence presented as “proof” or strongly suggestive of evolution, is in reality, upon closer scientific and logical scrutiny, evidence against their basic hypothesis and is usually more suggestive of Intelligent Design.

Given the above-mentioned deceptive practices, it is imperative that the Intelligent Design/Creation audience be prepared to intelligently debate the accuracy of the interpretation of those major “scientific” findings, which purport to “prove” the veracity of Darwinian evolution as an established fact. In this series of articles, I will attempt to present careful critiques of their analyses, based on ACTUAL Readings and quotations from the original research articles and not upon the “Interpretive Spin” of those with an evolutionary and secular agenda. One word of warning however, I will be playing solely in their sandbox, and will not use biblical arguments for our Christian beliefs, only conclusions based upon their own “scientific” findings and interpretations. My attempt will be to provide evidence suggesting that their own research and arguments for evolution actually are better arguments for Intelligent Design. Since I will be playing by their rules, I will be presenting information in the context of the scientific beliefs in long geological time periods, an old earth ( 4.5 billion years), and a 15 billion year old universe.

Today’s Topic: The Beak of the Finch

Long accepted as a primary icon of Darwinian evolution, the finches of the Galapagos islands were never mentioned in Darwin’s Origin of Species, but have continuously appeared in biology textbooks since the 1950’s due to their canonization by David Lack in the 1947 book:” Darwin’s Finches”. In addition, in a 1994 Pulitzer prize winning book entitled “ The Beak of the Finch”, reporter Jonathon Weiner immortalized the Galapagos finches as the “ best and most detailed example to date of the power of Darwin’s blind process of random mutation and natural selection “. Pontificating on the modern research on finches by Peter and Rosemary Grant, beginning in 1973 and extending into the early 1990’s, Weiner massages their data to fit his natural worldview, concluding that the observed variations in finch beak size were the result of random mutations in beak size genes, acted upon by natural selection survival criteria, interacting with changes in climatic conditions on the island. In fact as the climate changed from a rainy, humid environment, to a drought, it was observed that a larger number of finches would be born with bigger beaks, shaped so as to better enable them to extract the harder and larger seeds buried in firmer and less pliable ground.

In this environment, finches with smaller and less shapely beaks tend to lose the competition for scarce seeds and eventually suffer major decreases in their population. Birds with big, shapely beaks are then classified as a different species, compared to birds with smaller beaks, due to the supposition that females with larger beaks will tend to reject males with small beaks and mate primarily with males with larger beaks, thus satisfying the major biological criteria for species differentiation. Extrapolating from this process, evolutionary biologists then suggest that, over a long period of time, the accumulation of micro-changes, such as beak size differences, will result in large macro-changes, eventually leading to the appearance of a new genus such as a Galapagos Pelican or maybe even a new class such as a Galapagos Dog. As logical as this may sound to evolutionists, the facts, as observed and measured by the Grants, do not support this Darwinian scenario.

What in fact was observed by the Grants was a process lacking any real net change over the 20 years of their investigations. Since the climate on the islands varied periodically between heavy rainy seasons followed by equivalent periods of drought, the Grants observed an oscillatory process, with smaller finch beaks more prevalent during the rainy seasons, becoming gradually dominated by birds with larger beaks during the dry seasons. By itself, oscillating selection cannot produce any net change in Darwin’s finch species, no matter how long it continues. Some sort of long term trend in average beak size would have to be superimposed on the back and forth oscillations, to produce real long term change---and that is NOT what the Grants and their colleagues ever observed. In fact, a closer examination of the Grants actual published papers, reveals the observation of phenomena diametrically opposed to expectations that would derive from the Darwinian paradigm.

According to modern evolutionary biology, one population of Finches should eventually diverge into two species, then to four species, then to six species, in an ever exploding trend of more and more diverse and complex species, eventually resulting in the development of new phyla. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, the opposite has been observed for the Galapagos Finches. At least half of the Finch species were observed to hybridize, a process during which differing morphological or physical characteristics in several finch species tend to collect and merge into a few or even just one species. The Grant’s discovered that several bird species on one island were producing hybrids that thrived and reproduced successfully, gradually forcing the parent finch population into retreat and eventual extinction. Extrapolating from the observed frequency of observation, the Grants estimated that within one to two hundred years, all 14 observed species of Galapagos Finches would merge completely into one species, a result totally contradictory to the results expected if Darwinian evolution were the dominant species change mechanism. The finches’ success at hybridization raises serious doubt that the 14 observed species (1990) were separate species at all, even when applying the strict species classification criteria based upon inability to interbreed.

In articles published in 1996 and 1998, the Grants unbelievably declared that the Darwinian theory of species origin “fits the facts of Darwin finch evolution on the Galapagos islands,” and that the “driving force” is natural selection. This, in spite of the contradictory results reported by them in THEIR OWN previously published RESEARCH ARTICLES. This claim was echoed by Mark Ridley in his 1996 College Textbook, “Evolution”. In this text, Ridley extrapolated the increase in beak size, after the 1977 drought, into the future, to estimate the time it would take to produce a NEW SPECIES, completely ignoring the trendless, oscillatory pattern actually observed.

Ridley’s attempts to explain these apparent contradictions were classical Darwinist double talk. More time was needed to view trends that must occur, or the data contains sources of error that biased the conclusions away from the expected trends in average beak size, and the amazing revelation that “arguments of this kind are common in the theory of evolution.” May we infer that Ridley and the Grants are now appealing to the “ evolutionary chance god of the gaps? ”

Enter the National Academy of Sciences endorsement in a 1999 booklet that stated that Darwin’s Finches are a “particularly compelling example of the origin of species”. The booklet goes on to discuss how the Grants and their colleagues showed “that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches,” and that “if droughts occur once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch may arise every 200 years.”

Thus rather than CONFUSE the reader by mentioning that selection was reversed after the drought, producing NO LONG TERM evolutionary changes, the booklet simply omits this rather AWKWARD FACT. This is not TRUTH SEEKING in any definition of the term. It is also NOT REAL SCIENCE, but represents the type of reasoning expected from methodological naturalists, masquerading as true scientists. Thus, according to the Darwinists, evolution can be proven to be true, based on observations on increases in average finch beak size, and on the other hand, finch beaks must eventually show an average size increase since evolution must indeed be true. Convoluted, circular reasoning like this must be exposed for what it truly is, government supported MENDACITY.

Consequently, when Darwinists obtain data contrary to their pet theories, they simply ignore these facts, and report falsehoods, confidant that a gullible, news snippet educated public, will bow before their scientific masters and accept their pronouncements, without any further investigation of their claims. As we discussed, however, careful scientific scrutiny of their claims usually reveals the existence of an alternative set of conclusions in direct opposition to the evolutionary paradigms. The fact that the Grant’s careful research did not demonstrate any net change in average beak size or any other significant finch characteristics, under diverse environmental conditions, argues more for stasis of species rather than for evolutionary advancement. The temporary changes observed for beak size appear more the result of environmental selection operating on characteristics already existing in the finch population (both small and large beaked animals coexisted during various environmentally diverse periods, albeit in different proportions), rather than due to random, purposeless mutations in beak size, carefully pruned by natural selection. In actuality, the Grant’s research does not suggest the validity of randomly generated long term change, but the observance of natural variations inherent in any species due to genetic diversity already, purposely programmed into that particular species. Thus the failure to demonstrate any significant long term, irreversible changes, coupled with the overall observations of finch population stasis and tendency to pre-planned hybridization to one isolated non-interactive species, suggests the existence of PURPOSE. Purpose then suggests the interference of intelligence behind the purpose, i.e., an Intelligent Designer. Consequently arguments based on research supposedly demonstrating the validity of random, purposeless evolution, actually suggests the existence of a supervising Intelligence, a Transcendent Creator.

Once more, after careful analysis of specific claims by evolutionary scientists, we have shown that “THEY HAVE SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT…AGAIN.

Thanks Doc!

Well, I start school tomorrow, so I wont be posting each week, but I am very excited about my next topic - "The Design of the Cosmos". I'm especially thrilled to be showing you my subtopics on the Anthropic Principle, the Fine Tuning of the Universe, Our Rare Sun, the Big Bang Theory, Are We Really Alone (was Carl Sagan wrong), and others.

Tune in next time.

Cheers

Tom

What Darwin Didn't Know - Part 10: The Hominids

What would you say best characterizes human beings as distinct from all other created beings? I think that is a great question. The Bible states in Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 5:1-2 that male and female humans were made in the image of God. Here are the verses for your reference:

Genesis 1:26-27

²⁶ Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

²⁷ So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Footnotes:

1. Genesis 1:26 Hebrew; Syriac all the wild animals

Genesis 5:1-2 (New International Version)

Genesis 5

From Adam to Noah

¹ This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. ² He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."

Footnotes:

1. Genesis 5:2 Hebrew adam

These verses imply that we human beings in some ways bear a likeness or similarity to God, and uniquely in that respect. In other words, there ought to be a distinction somehow between we human beings and the animals or other created beings. Nowhere does scripture teach that the animals were also created in God's image, but rather only human beings were. Nor does scripture really tell us exactly what this "image of God" really is, so we are stuck with centuries of debate from theologians. A consensus of this concept by the theologians identifies these main characteristics:

(from "Who Was Adam", by Dr. Fazale Rana, Page 79)

1. Human beings possess a moral component. They inherently understand right and wrong and have a strong innate sense of justice.

2. Humans are spiritual beings who recognize a reality beyond this universe and physical life. Mankind intuitively acknowledges the existence of God and has a propensity toward worship and prayer.

3. Human beings relate to God, to themselves, to other people, and to other creatures. There is a relational aspect to God's image.

4. Humanity's mental capacity reflects God's image. Human beings possess the ability to reason and think logically. They can engage in symbolic thought. People express themselves with complex, abstract language. The are aware of the past, present, and future. Human beings display intense creativity through art, music, literature, science, and technological inventions.

For a more in depth description of the Imago Dei,

Kenneth Samples talks about "the Imago Dei" and describes how humans differ from the animals.

Interestingly, the fossil record displays a sudden burst of this "image of God" activity, including a sudden appearance of art, jewelry, music and musical instruments including the flute, the use of clothing, sophisticated tools and tool use, and religious artifacts involving worship. This cultural big bang occurs a few thousand years after the origin of humanity, which the RTB model dates to about 50,000 years ago. Prior to this, there are fossils of other quadrupedal and bipedal primates known as the hominids, but these "image of God" artifacts are conspicuously missing in all the fossils involving these primates, who date from millions of years ago to about 100,000 years ago (the Neanderthals). Just like the sudden appearance of complex first life on Earth, humans appear on the scene in the fossil record suddenly and without ancestral predecessors. The hominids that preceded the humans have far too many biological and cultural differences to have made any naturalistic evolutionary contributions to the origin of humanity.

Here is an excellent audio clip from Reasons To Believe's Biochemist, Dr. Fazale Rana on the vast differences between the hominids and human beings. As you listen, I'll just add a few points on the lack of time available for the vast anatomical and biological changes which must take place to go from a hominid to a human being (speaking from the point of view of the natural/Darwinian model). Bipedalism (the ability to walk upright on 2 limbs), and brain size, are considered to be humanity's two most significant anatomical features by evolutionary biologists. Significant discoveries in paleoanthropology and paleoecology push the date for bipedalism back to the very first hominids, between 5 and 6 million years ago. This shows that bipedalism did not emerge gradually in a step by step fashion, as would be expected in an evolutionary framework, but suddenly with the hominids' first appearance. Not only this, but bipedalism went through 2 stages over long periods of time without change. From "Who Was Adam?" page 162, Dr. Rana writes:

"Instead of gradually changing over time, bipedalism endured through two long periods without change. The first period lasted roughly 5 million years - the second, 2 million. The fossil record indicates that transition from one form of locomotion to another took place rapidly.

Australopithecines manifested facultative (optional) bipedalism. The Homo genus has always possessed obligatory bipedalism. Though australopithecines existed for nearly 3 million years, their facultative bipedalism did not gradually change into an obligatory form. Rather, it remained static throughout the duration of the australopithecines' existence. With the appearance of the Homo genus, a distinct new form of bipedalism (obligatory) suddenly showed up in the fossil record."

But this is antithetical to a gradual, step by step transitional process known as Darwinian Evolution, and the sudden appearance of obligatory bipedalism from facultative (optional) bipedalism can only be understood as a fingerprint of God, removing the older animals (australopithecines) with the newer homo hominids, as conditions in the environment changed.

What I'm saying is that if a naturalistic evolutionary model were true for the origin of humanity, wouldn't one expect bipedalism to transform from a crude and inefficient form to a more sophisticated, efficient form? Yet we see exactly the opposite in the fossil record, that bipedalism appears early and suddenly and does not experience any gradual changes over long periods of time, but only shows sudden changes as one species goes extinct and gives rise to another.

What about brain size? A similar pattern exists in the fossil record. The brain sizes do not gradually change in size over time, but remain constant for the time each hominid existed. In other words, the jumps in brain size are discontinuous, not gradual. Here's Dr. Rana again in "Who Was Adam?" from page 164: "The discontinuous jumps in brain size occur as new hominid species successively appear in the fossil record. For example, the brain size of the australopithecines, which existed from about 5.0 to 1.5 million years ago, was about 400 cm3. Brain size for those specimens assigned to Homo habilis, existing between 2.5 and 1.8 million years ago, jumped to between 650 and 800 cm3 in volume. Homo erectus/ergaster (about 1.8 million to 500,000 years ago) had a brain size that was larger still, ranging between 850 and 1000 cm3. Neanderthal's brain size was 1100 to 1400 cm3. By comparison, modern human brains range in size between about 1,000 and 1,500 cm3. These numbers show the general pattern of discontinuous leaps in brain size, not gradual increases."

Again, this is inexplicable from a strictly naturalistic evolutionary perspective. No known evolutionary processes can explain or produce such a cadence of change. The hominids were not the ancestors of humans, as most people on Earth today seem to mistakenly believe. Even the children's cartoons and movies, such as "Ice Age" make reference to the hominids as being human. Yet the evidence doesn't support this conclusion.

What about the argument that we share a common ancestor with the Chimpanzees? You may have heard that we share a 99% similarity in our DNA. This is totally bogus. There is more dissimilarities in the genetic makeup than similarities. Read this article on the latest on human-chimp genetic comparisons.

The fingerprint of God is unmistakable. God created the various hominids as distinct creatures. The fossil records portrays a lawn rather than a branching tree, where these animals are created, live unchanged for a period of time, then go extinct and are replaced with newer animals.

So what have we discovered these past 10 periods in our blog history? I think the evidence overwhelmingly refutes a Darwinian explanation for the origin of life on Earth and the origin of humanity. There's insufficient time, and there's no prebiotic soup. There seems to be evolution repeating itself, eventhough a blind, random mechanism such as natural selection should very rarely repeat itself. More accurately, it is a Creator who chooses to reuse archtypes or templates which work well in different unrelated organisms, much as an engineer designs parts to be used in different engines. We also saw how the Sun's luminosity has not been constant since Earth began, begging the question of just how could a blind process as naturalistic evolution could possibly forsee the future changes to the environment to know when to remove the old animals/organisms and to also know which kind of properties the new animals should possess, such that we human beings could benefit from their existence in the past? Also, how could Darwinism explain the sudden appearances of life, such as those appearing suddenly during the Cambrian Explosion, or those appearing just after the Permean Mass Extintion event? Or, how can a blind random process produce molecular machines which resemble those that human engineers produce? In my opinion, these can all be described as God's fingerprints. Let's take a quick look at Romans 1:

²⁰For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Well, I hope you enjoyed this series on What Darwin Didn't Know, although I believe that if Darwin could have lived today, he would become a believer in the God of all creation, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is "before all things" as stated so perfectly in Colossions 1:

The Supremacy of Christ

¹⁵He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Well stated.

Stay tuned - next we turn to the cosmos to discover just how fined tuned it is for life to even be possible anywhere in the universe. But for something to be fine tuned, you need someone to fine tune it. I'll show you who the fine tuner is and you'll learn some cool stuff about the universe, in my next topic called "The Design of the Cosmos"

Cheers

Tom