Last Saturday was the 8th annual Worcester Diocese Men's Conference at the DCU Center. Prof. Russell Stannard spoke on the subject that grew out of the question Stephen Hawking posed at the end of A Brief History of Time, "What place then for a creator?"
The Telegram covered the conference, and on the message postings a writer named Wingtips asked: "The article states that 'God fits in nicely, along with the big bang theory and Charles Darwin's evolutionary discourse.' I am curious about how this can be so when most who believe the bible to be the word of God and who accept Creationism (aka 'Intelligent Design') sneer at evolution and claim that the earth is somewhere around 6,000 years old, thus dismissing the big bang theory and the science of geology? One recent 'contributor' to these forums called the theory of evolution and geological evidence that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old 'twaddle.' Please explain how these can be reconciled."
I attempted a reply: "There is a vast range of thought by those who believe that God created the Universe, from strict Creationists who believe the Bible only has a literal interpretation and therefore the world is approximately 6000 years old, to those who believe that God spoke and the Universe was created (with a big bang about 14 Billions years ago) and that God specifically created Man (male and female He created them) at a specific point in time several to tens of thousands of years ago, to those (often classified as believers in Intelligent Design) who believe that God created the Universe with the Big Band and set in motion a series of events that lead to the formation of our Solar System, and life, and that God created evolution with the intent that Mankind would arise through evolution. All of the believers in this range of thought believe that God is not just Creator but Sustainer, that God is involved in our lives, indeed he sustains us. I myself would say that God keeps the electrons in their shells(orbits), because electron orbits contradict Newtonian Physics, and electrons should crash into the nucleus. And since the world is broken, all of these believers fight with each other. Just watch.
There are also others, like Albert Einstein, who believe that God created the Universe, but that God is not involved with us, is not God the Sustainer.
I believe the point of Dr. Stannard's talk could be summarized by former atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle's quote, 'a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.'"
4 comments :
Christians have nothing to fear from science. But those who reject a Creator do:
According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.
In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."
According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon.
When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.
Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.
Universal Acceptance Of Fine Tuning
Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."
Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).
Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of "Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of Life" was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples:
1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:
The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.
3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues,
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.
It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:
To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"
Excellent, Paul. I've copied your entire comment and saved it for reference.
As to this statement:
"...many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind."
Some time ago, during the Carter or Nixon administration or thereabouts, having fulfilled the 'man on the moon' goal, NASA put together a proposal for a manned flight to Mars. More payload, more supplies, more fuel... The projected cost was astronomical (pun intended) and the proposal scrapped. A couple decades later, a more comprehensive proposal, including a permanent base on Mars, came in with a dramatically lower price tag, not even adjusting for inflation. Why the lower cost? Because the original plan assumed that everything needed would have to be produced on Earth, lifted into space, and then landed on Mars. In the intervening years, astronomers had discovered that Mars itself contains much of the raw material needed for such a venture. And not only Mars, but several of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, and on across the vast reaches of the universe, there awaits an abundance of material readily available. This was a total surprise, and reversed the previous assumption of a hostile and barren universe.
Here's the punch line: This discovery, of the vast potential out there for our own use has been called (by secular scientists) the 'inexplicable convenience of the universe'.
Hey - we can explain it.
In my opinion, science and the Bible are not at odds concerning the origin of the universe. Your post is very timely. Hope to see more on this in the future.
Thank you, and may Jesus bless your apostolate.
Thank you Jerry for your kind words. I apologize for not responding sooner. I have been very busy during Lent trying to BE more and TALK less.
Your observations are much appreciated Jerry. It is always edifying to hear from brothers in the faith who aren't ashamed of Jesus and who possess the Cardinal Virtue of Fortitude. May your witness bring you countless blessings from the Risen Christ this Easter Season.
I have received many comments at my Blog describing in detail how stupid and sinful I am. I am not sure as to why this should come as a surprise to anyone. Realizing that in every criticism there is almost always a grain of truth, I would ask you - and all those who frequent this wonderful Blog - to pray for me. That the Lord Jesus may provide me with His grace to overcome my shortcomings.
As I state at my Blog, "It's not about me, it's about Jesus."
May I continually decrease so that He may increase in my life. Amen.
Peace Brother,
Paul.
Post a Comment