|Follow @ThePoachedEgg||Switch to mobile friendly version|
by J Warner Wallace
The just so appearance of “fine-tuning” in our universe is rather uncontroversial amongst scientists and cosmologists. Even physicist Paul Davies (who is agnostic when it comes to the notion of a Divine Designer) readily stipulates, “Everyone agrees that the universe looks as if it was designed for life.” In my new book, God’s Crime Scene: A Homicide Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe, I investigate this fine-tuning in great detail. The foundational, regional and locational conditions of our universe, solar system and planet are delicately balanced and finely calibrated. The slightest modification of these conditions would be disastrous for life. The delicate requirements for the existence of galaxies, star systems, and planets capable of supporting “intelligent observers” are incredibly fragile.
While scientists may stipulate to the appearance of fine-tuning in the natural universe, this does not mean they agree on the existence of a supernatural “Fine-Tuner”. How, precisely, do naturalists account for cosmic fine-tuning? Here is a brief summary of their attempts to explain the appearance of fine-tuning without the involvement of a Fine-Tuner:
Is Fine-Tuning Unrequired?
Some physicists have simply denied the importance of fine-tuning by claiming life could have emerged from broader, less fine-tuned parameters. In order to convince others of the irrelevance of the universal constants, however, they typically redefine the nature of “life” to something other than an organism’s ability to ingest food, metabolize energy, adapt to the environment and reproduce (standard attributes most of us would accept as a minimal description of living organisms). The kind of “life” described by those who hold this position is decidedly inferior to “life” as we know it by definition…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>>