466 Scripture & Science 8: Fine-Tuning (Will Barlow)

Posted on by Sean Finnegan

This episode rounds out three sessions focused on physics. Today we’re learning about the incredibly precise conditions required for life to exist in our universe. From the strength of gravity to the properties of carbon or water to the beauty of math and the stars, Pastor Will Barlow enumerates several key ways in which the cosmos is finely-tuned to support life. Next he covers several of the common responses atheists put forward to explain this incredible precision. Barlow briefly responds to each before concluding that the God hypothesis fits the best.

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts

See below for notes.

—— Links ——

—— Notes ——

What is fine-tuning?

Fine-tuning is the idea that the existence of life on Earth is due to remarkably precise “settings” in the natural world.

• Example: baking a cake vs. baking a “fine-tuned” cake
• Example: Finding a watch in a forest

Fine-tuning in Scripture

Romans 1:20   For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Categories of fine-tuning

• Cosmological
• Properties of carbon and water
• Beauty in math, physics, and nature

Cosmological fine-tuning

Example One: The Balance between forces

• A 1% change in the strong nuclear force would have a 30-1,000 fold impact on oxygen and carbon production in stars
• Small changes to gravity would make large life impossible
• The balance between gravity and electromagnetism allows for gentler yellow stars like our Sun

“The expansion speed, the material content of the universe, and the strengths of the basic forces, seem to have been a prerequisite for the emergence of the hospitable cosmic habitat in which we live.”
-Martin Rees, physicist and skeptic

Example Two: The Balance between other quantities

• The proportion of hydrogen converted to helium
• Nuclear physics is precisely designed to produce enough carbon to support life
• The existence of supernovas lead to second and third generation stars capable of supporting life
• A specific variable, called the “phase-space volume” appears to be fine-tuned to one part in 10,000,000,000^123 (1 followed by 10^123 zeros)
• The expansion rate of the Universe is perfect for life
• The amount of dark energy appears to be fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^120

Example Three: Earth’s place in the Universe

• The size of the Earth is perfect to support life
• The moon supports the Earth’s axial tilt, which makes Earth’s climate stable
• The moon runs the tides, which help moderate the climate
• The moon protects the Earth from asteroid strikes, comets, etc.
• The Sun is the right kind of star to support life
• The Earth is in the right “zone” in its orbit around the Sun to support life
Properties of carbon and water

Example One: Carbon

• Carbon forms stable compounds – is the only element able to produce DNA and RNA
• Carbon can store more genetic information than any other element

Example Two: Water

• Universal solvent
• Frozen water less dense than liquid water, which preserves life in ponds and makes the water cycle more efficient
• The water cycle allows water to moderate the temperature of landlocked regions
• High latent heat allows small bodies of water to exist and support life
• Surface tension allows for water skiing (and more importantly, for capillary action)

Beauty in math, physics, and nature

• F = m * a
• E = m * c^2
• F = (G * m1 * m2) / r^2

Why are these elegant equations true?

Beauty in math, physics, and nature

A powerful example: Eclipses

• The apparent size of the moon and the apparent size of the Sun are essentially identical!
• There is no reason why this must be the case
• Beauty and discovery

The existence of God

How do atheists respond to fine-tuning?

• Richard Dawkins uses the WAP (weak anthropic principle)
• Basically, WAP asserts that we would not be here to marvel the fine-tuning of the Universe, unless the Universe existed as it did.

“In essence, the weak anthropic principle wrongly asserts that the statement of a necessary condition of an event eliminates the need for a causal explanation of that event. Oxygen is a necessary condition of fire, but saying so does not provide a causal explanation of the San Francisco fire. Similarly, the fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe is a necessary condition for the existence of life, but that does not explain, or eliminate the need to explain, the origin of fine tuning.”

• Victor Stenger attacks fine-tuning several ways

• He argues that carbon (for example) is a natural consequence of the scientific order
• He also says that the Universe is mostly uninhabitable – maybe not as fine-tuned as we thought!

How to respond to Stenger?

• Carbon still came from nuclear reactions as given by the conditions of the laws of physics we have – it could have been different
• The Universe is not a waste of space – tells the story of God and is a place for us to explore

Three further objections to fine-tuning:

• Observational Selection Effect
• Problems with Probability
• Naturalistic Explanations

What does fine-tuning say about the existence of God?
I believe that the Universe was fine-tuned for life.
While this is not direct evidence for God, I think the existence of God fits the evidence far better than any other option.

Related Posts:

2 thoughts on “466 Scripture & Science 8: Fine-Tuning (Will Barlow)”

  • Some thoughts as I listened to this session:

    You said that over time as the universe expanded “it appears” that stars were very light and over time they supernova-ed and created (or formed) new elements. What new elements were “formed?”

    You then commented that in order to fill out the periodic table of elements “You gotta have supernovas?” Did God make the elements or is “nature” creating elements? What is the latest element that has been formed by any supernova?

    Then you stated that there were stars capable of supporting life. Which stars would that be? Sounds completely theoretical. How did someone supposedly “determine” what elements were on any individual star?

    You said that at some point the universe started expanding again. When did this happen? How did you get to this conclusion? Then you said that what kept us from imploding was something that scientists “postulated” as “dark matter.” So, someone came up with an unsubstantiated idea about us not imploding, then needed a reason, so they made up a “substance” called “dark matter.” Really?

    You stated that the size of the earth is perfect to support life? What about the stars that can support life that you mentioned earlier?

    One of the explanations of the value of the moon was that it causes a tilt to the earth. There is no “axial tilt” to the earth. Read scripture. The earth does not move. True science, using actual experiments, has proven this. From Nikao’s book The True Doctrine of the Globe Earth a Scriptural View of the Universe, here is a summary:

    “In 1871, George Bidell Airy sought to prove that the earth is heliocentric, but instead, he proved that it’s stationary. – – – In 1877, the Michelson Morley Experiment established that the earth is stationary. – – – The Sagnac Experiment (in 1913) debunked Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. – – – Albert Einstein (in 1915) countered with the General Theory of Relativity. – – – The Michelson-Gale experiment in 1925 confirmed the results obtained by Sagnac. – – – Science undergrad students are never taught about the Michelson-Gale Experiment, Airy’s Failure, or the Sagnac Experiment. – – – Every scientific proof for an Earth revolving around the sun has been discredited, and no experiment has provided proof that the Earth is moving. – – – Space probes reveal that the design of the universe points to the earth at the center. – – – It wasn’t until scientific probes produced data about the radiation of the expanding universe, and the orientation of the quasars and radio galaxies; that researchers were able to see that all of those things were pointing back to Earth as the center of the universe. The cover-up of these experiments has been astounding in that students in astronomy and other fields aren’t even taught about them.”

    You said the moon protects us from asteroids? How? “Acts as a “buffer?” How? How do the “dynamics” of that actually work? Or is this just another “theoretical” explanation of something that we actually know nothing about?

    You said the sun is the “right kind of star to support life?” I thought there were other stars out there that could do that. You mentioned again the earth’s orbit. The earth does not have any orbit. Maybe that is why there is no “scientific” explanation for the “orbit.” Why insist on an orbit? Another quote from Nikao’s book is:

    “No Bible verse says that the earth is moving, in a circuit, or spinning; but they do proclaim that is stands still. – – – Bible verses proclaim that the sun is moving. – – – Bible verses proclaim that the sun was moved back, which is not possible in a heliocentric universe. – – – Bible verses declare that the sun rises and knows it’s going down. – – – Science has confirmed that the earth is not moving and that the earth is the center of the universe.”
    Making the statement that “there is no reason why life would have to be beautiful” is a slap in the face of Almighty God who made it that way for us. If it “doesn’t have to be this way”, what other way would it be? If you are going to negate the current “way” life is, provide an alternative. How can you repeatedly state “there is no reason it has to be that way” when you supposedly know the reason. God made it that way.

    So, did “the universe” create carbon or did God create carbon?

    Dawkins and Stenger “believe” something. That is not scientific.

    It seems that the common theme throughout this session is that “science” is a hypothetical narrative with no “scientific” proof of any segment of the narrative. In trying to find any other narrative than “in the beginning God created” all that is developed is theoretical ideas with no substantial evidence. How is this science?

    For the individual, the battle is not in the scientific arena, it is in the heart. Remember, it is in the heart where beliefs are embraced. Once one comes to terms with the facts, that science proves the record in the Bible, by default one must reconcile these facts with “in the beginning God created”, which has aways been the crux of the matter. Remember, the beginning of knowledge is reverence and awe for the Creator God.

    Thank you again for inspirational presentations. They are really making me think about what I believe and why.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *