| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The view that the universe was designed is coupled with the idea that the world exists for a purpose. The purpose of the world is usually attributed to the support of life, especially mankind. The antithesis of this view is that the world has no purpose. In this view life came about by events that were the result of blind chance. The appearance of design in nature from a scientific cosmological stance is thoroughly addressed by RossFootnote1.
The argument for design is usually based on the fine-tuning of various physical constants in order for the world to exist as we know it, and thus, provide the environment necessary to support life. The counter argument to this view has frequently been that design was not necessary to produce a world capable of supporting life because it could have happened by chance. The proponents of this latter view have appealed to two cosmological theories (steady state and oscillating universe theories) that they argued made this chance event (life) a reasonably likely one. The steady state cosmology asserted an infinitely old universe in which our planet eventually emerged by blind chance. Thus there had been ample time for the necessary conditions to arise that could both produce and support life. The oscillating universe cosmology asserted the universe expanded and collapsed thus coming in and out of existence for an infinite period of time until it finally produced the world we happen to have at the moment and are able to observe. That is, the conditions for supporting life accidentally occurred in this particular oscillation. The current scientific evidence supports the standard or 'big bang' cosmology which indicates that the universe is a one time event of fairly recent occurrence (approximately 15 billion years ago). For the proponents of blind chance this reduces the likelihood of a fine-tuned universe that could support life to an extremely (perhaps incomprehensibly) small probability.
According to the standard 'big bang' model the world as it is (long-lived, populated by galaxies of stars, and containing appreciable quantities of the heavier elements) was produced by a series of events requiring an extraordinarily precise balance of initial conditions and of the laws governing the four fundamental forcesFootnote2. Even slight changes in these and the universe might have been short lived; either collapsing on itself, or expanding too rapidly for matter to form into stars or planets and perhaps consisting only of the light elements (such as helium or hydrogen). The anthropic principle was proposed by B. J. Carr, Martin Rees, and several other British cosmologists to explain this fine tuning without having to appeal to the theistic alternative of a creator or a 'fine-tuner'. In 1981 Alan Guth proposed a modification to the standard model involving a rapid expansion or inflation during the first fraction of a second of cosmic formation. This was proposed to eliminate part of the need for 'fine-tuning'. This introduced new problems however and is still under debate.
The force behind the metaphorical argument of fine-tuning depends on establishing a special sort of contingency or unlikelihood that requires explanation. The main appeal of quantum cosmology ('big bang' model) to Christian believers is that scientific theory seems to point to a state of affairs that would itself require an explanation of a religious nature (that is a beginning or act of creation). Unlike all other such leads in the past, this was one would not require an alteration by fiat of natural process on the part of the Creator but possibly just a creative setting of the original stage. Paul DaviesFootnote3 has found this possible connection between scientific cosmology and theistic belief appealing. However, most scientific theories, especially theories regarding the origin and formation of the universe, are tentative and what now appears contingent can later turn out to be necessary after all. Extreme caution should be exercised in associating ones faith with the current trend in cosmological theory. These trends can change rapidly and it can be very disorienting to base one's faith on an erroneous theory. On the other hand the popularity of Stephen Hawking's, A Brief History of Time (1988), may be partially derived from his vague remarks about the negative implications of recent cosmology for belief in a Creator (along the lines that there would be nothing for a creator to do and the existence of matter may just be a result of a vacuum fluctuation).
The opposition between the concepts of design versus chance can also be cast in terms of evolution of the formation of the universe. The end result of processes, supernatural or natural, leading to the physical existence of the universe is a perceived order. The question is; did the occurrence of these events proceed by supernatural design or natural processes? Design implies a certain necessary sequence of occurrence of each event to achieve a purpose (i.e., to produce the specific universe that exists). Although there may exist a number of possible contingent events, any one of which can occur, the occurrence of certain specific events are necessary to produce the world as it is. Necessity normally implies a deterministic character of events to achieve a purpose. Here we are referring to the circumstance where the event is a necessary cause to produce the desired effect but the occurrence of the event is contingent. That is, to produce a universe of a particular design, a particular event must occur but there existed the possibility of other events occurring so that the selected event occurred as a result of choice not physical determinism (i.e., there is something for a Creator to do). On the other hand chance implies an absence of purpose and leads to a view of processes as a disordered series of chaotic events connected by physical determinism. The principle of design would have us believe that the universe as it exists took its specific form for a purpose. The principle of chance would have us believe that the universe is a product of accident and its formation was devoid of purpose. One must be careful at this point to then claim that the belief in the existence of chance on any metaphysical level is anti-biblical. While there are those who believe that 'chance' and 'god' are antithetical there are Christian believers who do not hold such a view. Donald MacKay makes the following argument that chance is not antithetical to the Christian world view. The following is an excerpt. Footnote4
Is this antithesis between 'god' and 'chance' a genuinely biblical one? If not, Christians have no brief to defend it. There are two kinds of chance. In science chance is used as a technical term to mean the absence of knowledge of causal connections between events. In popular usage, the word tends to take on a different shade of meaning, as chaos, the antithesis of intelligence, - 'blind chance'. It is this metaphysical notion, often virtually personified as an alternative to God, that our grandfathers obviously meant to resist, and that many unbelieving scientists apparently felt bound to defend in the name of 'science'. It rather looks as if, in the nineteenth century debates on the role of 'chance' in biology, the two senses of the word became hopelessly confused, so that 'Science' gained (on both sides) the reputation of making metaphysical assertions which no amount of biological fact could ever justify, while the Bible got the reputation (again, alas, on both sides) of denying the validity of a purely technical, and theologically neutral, scientific notion. Chance in the sense of chaos is indeed recognized in the bible (Genesis 1:2), but only as something banished from the world by God's creative word. Chance in the neutral sense in which we first defined it, however is accepted in a very different spirit. 'The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the Lord (Proverbs 16:33). Could there be a clearer indication that God is the Lord of events which in this sense 'happen by chance', just as much as of those that seem orderly to us? The Bible does not tolerate the idea that He must always work in a way that appears orderly from the view point of man.
An author of anti-Christian persuasion who is both better known and less insensitive than most is Sir Julian Huxley, and a well-known article of his entitled 'The Evolutionary Vision', (from Issues in Evolution, pp. 249-261, in volume III of Evolution after Darwin, edited by Sol Tax and Charles Callender (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961), may fairly be cited as a present-day example of the philosophical 'Evolutionism' versus the technical theory of evolution. In it he says:'In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created; it evolved.... Evolutionary man can no longer...absolve himself from the hard task of meeting his present problems and planning his future by relying on the will of an omniscient, but unfortunately inscrutable, Providence.' Again G. G. Simpson, after showing that (technical) chance could 'account for' biological development, concludes dogmatically: 'Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned.' (This is from G. G. Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (Yale, 1949).
Finally, as recently as 1971, we find the distinguished biologist Jacques Monod arguing that 'Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, (is) at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution': and that therefore 'man at last knows (sic) that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe.... Neither his destiny nor his duty have been written down'. (from Chance and Necessity, Collins, 1971, pp.110, 167.) Here are all the marks of the confusion outlined above. The evolution of the created order is thought of as an alternative that excludes its having been created; and divine help and Providence are taken as exclusive alternatives to human effort. (see Phil 2:12 as an example how this is counter to Christian thought.) We have here a confusion between technical evolutionary theory and 'the evolutionary pattern of thought', with the inevitable implication (however unintentional) that it is scientific fact which leaves 'no...room for the supernatural'.
The blunt truth, that no scientific fact can say anything either for or against the supernatural, makes such dogmatism hard to distinguish from sheer wishful thinking. Certainly it has no basis in logic. Christians have here a constructive task of clarification, in which not only the bible but also the nature of science itself support them as they seek to bring such misrepresentation to an end.
The idea that the biological theory of evolution supports anti-christian 'Evolutionism' is false; and it would be a shame for any Christian literature to align itself with atheistic rationalism in continuing to give currency to it. The parasite should be exposed for what it is, leaving Christians more free than anyone else to enjoy following the trail of God-given scientific clues to the past he has created, giving him glory for whatever unfolding picture they reveal.
In summary, it is important to keep in mind that physicalism is a philosophical presupposition of science not a scientific conclusion. Thus, given this presupposition, if order "evolves" from chaos it must be "chance" or an undiscovered physical law and not "mind" unless it is human mind (which violates the temporal or sequential requirements of cause and effect (although various forms of the anthropic principle call for this) or perhaps a form of panpsychism. This argument can take the form necessary for a valid logical deduction but the soundness of the argument rests on the truth of the presupposition. Thus the perhaps valid but unsound logical deduction is confused with a true scientific conclusion.
14. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress, 1993, and The Fingerprint of God, Promise Publishing Company, 1989.
15. The four fundamental forces in their order of increasing strength are gravitation, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and strong nuclear force. See discussion of Figure 1 in previous section.
16. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1983.
17. Donald M. MacKay, The Clock Work Image, Intervarsity Press, 1974.
Read on to the next section in "Cosmology"
Return to the Table of Contents
