like someone meant to


The Anthropic Evidence
Why does the universe seem to be built for humans?

The fine-tuning of the universe gives strong evidence for a Designer.


The Anthropic Principle (from Greek anthropos meaning 'man') states that the universe was fitted from its moment of existence for life and is especially suited for the well-being of mankind. It is a powerful argument that the universe was designed.

Evolutionary theory believes it has an answer to "design" in biological systems by hypothesizing ongoing processes of mutation and natural selection. Living things are said to change very slowly and improve with time. There are many fundamental problems with evolutionary theory, not the least of which is that in the case of the Anthropic Principle the theory provides no answer at all. 

Whether describing tides, proton mass, or the earth's position in the solar system, a grand design presents itself from the very beginning. These phenomena don't mutate or change with time. The reality of this has forced some in secular science to propose that there are an infinite number of universes, each with a completely different set of physical properties.

According to such thinking, our particular universe just happens to have conditions suitable for human life, and that is why we are here to enjoy it! Of course, there is no way to detect any "other" universes or comprehend their underlying principles. That is why people, secular or religious, refer to our cosmic reality as a uni-verse (one) not a multi-verse (many), which is exactly what the Bible says! Also the fact that ‘something just happens to be here’ is not an explanation for why it is.

Our universe contains everything, including the clear marks of the supremely intelligent design of our creator God.

According to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature, a certain order prevails—one independent of the human mind . . . this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe to which both man and nature are subservient.
— Max Planck, Physics Nobel Prize winner

The fine-tuning of the universe and solar system gives strong evidence for a Designer

•    The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it were larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms. 
•    The ratio of electron to proton mass is 1:1836. If this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.
•    Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels. 
•    If our sun were a different color (redder or bluer), photosynthesis would be impaired.
•    Our sun is also the right mass and stability. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be unstable high-energy radiation. If it were smaller, our planet would be pulled closer to the sun making gravity so strong the tidal forces would disrupt the earth’s rotational period. Our days would slow to months and we would either freeze or burn.
•    The earth's distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
•    Our atmosphere is a perfect mixture of gases of which oxygen comprises 21%. If it were 25% fires would erupt, if 15% we would all choke.
•    If the gravitational force in the universe were lessened slightly (1 part in 10 followed by 40 zeros) the sun would not exist and the moon would crash into the earth or sheer off into space. A slight increase in gravity would cause our sun to burn too rapidly and erratically to sustain life.
•    If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.
•    If the universe were expanding at a rate one millionth more slowly than it is, the temperature on earth would be 10,000 degrees C.
•    If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, we would be bombarded with space material. Its gravitational field acts like a cosmic vacuum cleaner protecting earth.

The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
— Psalm 19:1

•    If the thickness of the earth’s crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would pollute the air and make life impossible.
•    If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter atmospheric wind velocities would continually be around 1000 mph.
•    The earth spins on its axis at a perfect 23 degrees, if it were altered slightly, the surface temperature of the earth would be to hot and seasons too erratic for life.
•    If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen in the soil.
•    If there were more seismic activity much life would be lost. If there were less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. Even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life.
•    If the moon were closer to the earth, tides would be greatly increased. Ocean waves could sweep across the continents. The seas themselves might heat to the boiling point from the resulting friction. A more distant moon would reduce the tides and marine life would be endangered by the resulting stagnant water.  Mankind would be in trouble because the oxygen in the air we breathe is replenished by marine plants.
•    If there were no ozone layer the sun’s ultraviolet rays would kill all life in minutes.

A scientist described the delicate balance of the universe being equal to 50,000 pencils continually and simultaneously standing on their points not falling over.

A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.
— Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomer and former atheist

The incredible balance of multitudinous factors in the universe that makes life possible on earth points to ‘fine tuning’ by an intelligent Being. It leads one to believe that the universe was providentially crafted for our benefit. Nothing known to humans is capable of ‘pre-tuning’ the conditions of the universe to make life possible other than an intelligent Creator outside the creation itself. Or, to put it another way, the kind of specificity and order in the universe that makes life possible on earth is just the kind of effect that is know to come from an intelligent cause.

Is there life on other planets?
The mathematical possibility that there is another planet anywhere in the universe with anthropic qualities like earth to support life is much smaller than a trillionth of a trillionth of one percent. (less than .0000000000000000000000001%) Considering that the universe only has about a trillion galaxies each of which averages one hundred billion stars, statistics argue that not even one planet would be expected by natural processes alone to harbor life.  Many astronomers are now deciding that given the above statistical probability, it is unlikely that life, especially intelligent life, exists anywhere else in the universe.

The issue isn't that it seems impossible there isn’t life somewhere else, but it’s the fact there shouldn’t be life anywhere in the universe!


The Teleological Evidence
what evidence does design give us?

The fact there is design and symmetry gives strong evidence for a Designer.


--If randomness and uncontrolled chance events were the mechanism for the beginning of our universe why is there noticeable order rather than random chaos?
--Why can we tell the difference between design and chaotic or haphazard construction?

William Paley (1743-1805) gave one of the most popular arguments for design in his book Natural Theology the story of the Watchmaker. He insisted that if someone found a watch in an empty field lying among some rocks, one would rightly conclude that it had a watchmaker because of its design and complexity as opposed to the surrounding rock. Even if you had never seen the watchmaker or didn’t know what a watch was, the complexity and order (interlocking dials, precision parts, springs, moving implements all working together) implied design.

He argued the greater the design difference (rock to watch) the more likely a designer. The greatest of differences (watch to universe) implied a Great Designer. 

He asserted that upon finding the watch you were left with 2 choices
1. Nature, time and chance worked together to bring about the order you see
2. Some intelligent mind brought about the order and design you see

An explosion in a junkyard doesn’t make a working red mustang convertible—you only get more random, less useful junk! (Without God there wouldn’t even be ‘junk’ in the junkyard to explode, because matter isn’t created from nothing)

Explosions on a local or cosmic scale never have a positive creative or designing effect, always destructive and random.

For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.
— Hebrews 3:4

Charles Darwin was required to read Paley during his theological studies at Cambridge (1828–31). He later said, ‘I do not think that I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology.” I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’ However, he then spent the rest of his life developing and promoting a theory to explain how ‘design’ in nature could occur without God.

Darwin proposed that small, useful changes could occur by chance, and enable their possessors to survive and pass on changes—natural selection.

Evolutionists, including the atheistic Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins, still use Darwin’s theory to oppose the design argument. But now, they believe that natural selection acts on genetic copying mistakes (mutations), some of which are supposed to increase the genetic information content. But Dawkins’ arguments have been severely critiqued on scientific grounds. 

•    Natural selection requires self-reproducing entities. Producing even the simplest self-reproducing organism by a chance combination of chemicals is even more incredible than producing the Encyclopedia Britannica by throwing letters into the air. Living things require long molecules with precise arrangements of smaller ‘building blocks’. Not only will the ‘building blocks’ not combine in the right order, but they are unlikely, by natural means, to build up large molecules at all! Rather, large molecules tend to break down into smaller ones.
•    There is complex biological machinery of which Darwin was simply ignorant. Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe lists a number of examples that have irreducible complexity: real motors, transport systems, the blood-clotting cascade, the complex visual machinery. They require many immediately functioning parts or they would not work at all, so they could not have been built in small steps by natural selection.
•    Biophysicist/information theorist Dr. Lee Spetner points out that mutations never add information, but only reduce it — this includes even the rare helpful mutations. Natural selection is insufficient to accumulate slight advantages, as it would be too weak to overcome the effects of chance, which would tend to eliminate mutants. 

A purpose, an intention, a design strikes every where the most careless, the most stupid thinker; and no man can be so hardened in absurd systems, as at all times to reject it.
— David Hume, Philosopher

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species said, 
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Atheist Julian Huxley calculated the odds of random chance evolution at 1 to 1000 to the millionth power. (1 followed by 3 million zeros) A mathematical impossibility.

Only in a system where design is discernible from randomness or chaos is design possible. Since everything in our system goes from order and design to randomness and deconstruction, (2nd law of Thermodynamics) then ultimately design comes first.

If we can recognize design in human creations how much more plausible is it to assume that everything from a cell to the cosmos has an ultimate Designer?

Design in Mind precedes design in Kind.

The harmony of natural law reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection…God does not play dice with the universe.
— Albert Einstein