Philosophy Club

COSMOLOGY AND DESIGN

Introduction

Was the universe designed and created by a supernatural, superintelligent and all-powerful being? If your answer to this question is yes, then you probably accept what is called "The Argument from Design". It has the following form:

1. The universe exhibits certain very general features such as means-ends adaptation and being governed by laws i.e. it exhibits order.
2. These features of the universe are evidence of design.

Therefore, the universe was designed (and created) by a super-intelligent designer.

This argument was first presented by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Using discoveries from modern cosmology a more sophisticated form of the argument has been presented. It is called the Argument from Fine Tuning. The argument begins by pointing to the fact that the universe is "finely tuned" in a number of ways.

1. The density parameter and the rate of expansion of the universe.
   
   Since the Big Bang, approximately 15 billion years ago, the universe has been continually expanding. There are two related notions here: the rate at which the universe expanded after the Big Bang and the amount of matter in the universe. If the rate of expansion had been too high, then the force of gravity would have been too weak to allow the formation of stars and galaxies. If the rate had been too low, then stars and galaxies would have formed but would then have collapsed under gravity (i.e. gravity would have been too strong). For the rate to have been "just right" depended crucially on the amount of matter in the universe. The measure of the amount of matter is called the "density parameter". It turns out that had the density parameter been different by a value greater than 0.0000...001( with 60 zeros), then stars and galaxies (and hence intelligent life) would not have come into existence.
   
   
2. The formation of carbon
   
   The second example of fine-tuning concerns the manufacture of carbon inside large stars. Carbon is formed inside stars from the three-way collision of helium nuclei. Now, such collisions are extremely rare, and can only occur often enough to produce significant amounts of carbon if the energies of the colliding nuclei are just right. The cosmologist Fred Hoyle predicted that for carbon to be formed in significant amounts carbon must be capable of existing at a previously undetected energy level (a level matching that of the colliding nuclei). Hoyle's prediction was confirmed so precisely that if this energy level was more than 4% above the predicted amount, carbon would not form inside stars in anything like the amounts necessary for the existence of carbon-based life.

These are just two examples of the way in which the existence of intelligent life depends on extremely fine-tuning. There are others – the value of the electron to proton mass ratio is such that if it were different by a minute amount, heavy metals would not have formed.

The Argument from Fine-Tuning

Based on these examples the argument from fine tuning can be stated as follows:

1. The laws and initial conditions at the Big Bang were such that the universe is suitable for intelligent life.
2. The initial conditions were very finely tuned so that had they been even slightly different, a universe suitable for intelligent life would not have come into existence.
3. It is extremely unlikely that this sort of fine-tuning could have occurred by chance.
4. The best explanation is that the universe was created by a supremely powerful and intelligent designer.

Conclusion: A supremely powerful and intelligent designer (i.e. God) exists.

Comments and questions

1. The first premise of the argument is clearly true – since the universe contains intelligent life it must be suitable for intelligent life.
2. The second premise may be accepted as it seems to be an established fact of cosmology. However, it is slightly misleading to say that the universe is suitable for intelligent life, as it is suitable for much else besides. Since human beings are a form of intelligent life, obviously we have a special interest in the universe being suitable for things like us. However, is this to say that the universe has somehow been designed with us in mind? Of all the infinite possible sorts of thing the universe was suitable for, intelligent life is just one, albeit one of particular interest for us. No doubt it was good for us that the universe was suitable for intelligent life, but might there not have been a universe with even more complex and interesting things than intelligent life? Is the existence of intelligent life so special?
   
   
3. The third premise is more controversial in its appeal to probability. There are an infinite number of possible universes all of which are suitable for intelligent life. To see this, suppose that the value of the density parameter is N. Then there are an infinite number of values of the density parameter all close enough to N to allow the formation of stars and galaxies. Similarly, there are an infinite number of values all close enough to the appropriate energy level for carbon to be produced in stars in sufficient quantities for life.
   
   Thus, it is not as if the existence of intelligent life in the universe depends on the coming into existence of this universe. There are an infinite number of universes which would have done as well.
   
   
4. A consideration of the fourth premise raises the question: Is God the best explanation of fine-tuning?
   
   Firstly, are explanations in terms of God explaining the mysterious in terms of the even more mysterious? We have no knowledge at all about God, so any explanation based on God tells us nothing. Secondly, is the notion of God plausible as an explanation? For it would be a remarkable coincidence if a being that is tailor-made to allay all our deepest anxieties and fears (e.g. of death) were just the being which happened to design and create the universe. Thirdly, are there other possible explanations of fine-tuning? For example, the values of the constants may be necessary – it may be, that is, that these values could not be different from what they in fact are.
   
   
5. David Hume (1711 – 1776):
   1. How do we know that the Designer, assuming there was one, still exists?
   2. How do we know that there is a unique Designer?
   3. Even if a Designer exists, why should it have all the attributes normally associated with God such as being personal (responding to prayer) and being perfectly good?
   
   
   
6. Even if the existence of God were the best explanation it may not be rational, on the basis of this, to believe that God exists. Maybe we just don't know why the universe is finely tuned and, moreover, will never know. An explanation may be the best of a bad lot, in which case it would be better not to accept any explanation at all. For example, we may be unable to explain the existence of large obviously non-human footprints on a remote snow-covered area. Perhaps the only explanation we can think of is that the footprints were caused by the Yeti – the Abominable Snowman. Given that we have no other evidence for the existence of the Yeti, might it not be best in those circumstances just to say that we don't yet know what produced the footprints? Is it the case that any explanation is better than none at all?
   
   
7. Suppose that Earth is the only place in the universe where intelligent life exists. If some astronomical event – collision with a comet, for example – were to destroy life on Earth for ever, would that show that, after all, the universe could not have been designed by a super-intelligent designer?

References

P. Davies, The Mind of God, Ch. 8

J. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism, Ch. 8

R. Neurath