in 1963 a new game show made its debut on television. Conceived by Monty Hall, who would be the host for the next 23 years, the show offered contestants a choice of 3 doors behind which were randomly arranged 1 very nice prize (such as a new car) while the other 2 concealed not such nice entities. The guest had the option to pick 1 door, but before it was opened, the host would open a 2nd door-always revealing 1 of the unattractive rewards. The contestant was then offered the opportunity to change the original choice to the remaining closed door.
At that time Sunday newspapers carried an insert, Parade Magazine, which included a column entitled “Ask Marilyn”. This weekly entry was written by Marilyn von Savant, a contributor whose measured IQ was 228, and she would answer questions mailed in by her readers. In 1990 one of these questions concerned the aforementioned game show: should a contestant keep the original choice or switch to the remaining unopened door? In her column, Marilyn recommended switching. This simple answer opened a fire storm of over 10,000 responses criticizing her, including over a thousand from self proclaimed PhDs, including mathematicians and physicists. Many of these were more than a little unflattering and personally aggressive. Switching the 1st to the 2nd door should make no difference since the odds were 50-50 of winning the jackpot they argued.
But here’s the thing. Marilyn was right.
There is still debate over what the precise mathematical improvement in probability would be with a switch, but there is no longer debate that the contestant would have a better chance of victory by choosing the 2nd door. Originally, the likelihood of selecting the desired door is 1 in 3. By opening 1 of the remaining doors-not randomly chosen by the host-the probability was improved to at least 1 in 2. Look at it this way: If there were 100 doors, and after the guest chose door 1, and Monty Hall opened every door except door number 42, then that door almost certainly would reveal the winning prize. Computer simulation demonstrated even with the 3 door scenario the percentage chances would improve by switching and review of actual game show results also confirmed this outcome.
What we are talking about is probability. We live our lives based on probability. We invest money, cross the street, choose a mate, accept a job–everything based on probability. The enormous Las Vegas hotels and casinos were built on the percentage chances of the proffered games to the bettors favoring the house. All is based on mathematical probabilities, some chosen by intuition, others by incredibly precise calculations. The next time you make a left turn through an intersection while driving, count the seconds between making that turn and the oncoming traffic whizzing through your now vacated space. You made an intuitive assessment that you had a good probability of successfully executing the maneuver before being T-boned–and that time difference might be a single second.
The chance that we and our world exist is a probability condition. Mathematically, the universe as we know it, and the existence of life (especially higher life forms) should not be possible. The odds against us being here are incredibly huge. The very existence of the universe is improbable and to reach the existence of a planet that can be a possible habitation for living creatures requires unbelievably precise and sequential events.
The fine tuning of parameters of physics and chemistry required for life to exist has been termed the Goldilocks Universe. The precision of these fundamentals is jaw dropping. The physicist Sir Fred Hoyle-no friend of the concept of a Creator-still marveled that the facts suggested a “super intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as chemistry and biology.” Attempts have been made by those opposed to intelligent design to posit that Hoyle referred to some naturalistic causation , but these rebuttals smack of semantic word games. Even poster boy atheist Richard Dawkins once admitted in an interview that the fine-tuning argument was difficult for him to overcome.
So what are these fine tuning parameters? Astro physicist Hugh Ross in 2004 listed 154 such findings. Robert Clifton Robertson expanded the list to 209. Jay Richards was quite a bit more reserved, limiting his requirements to a subdued sounding 22–until you realize even that abbreviated number is uber-impressive.
Look at the four major fundamental forces: Gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong/week nuclear forces. You can throw in the cosmologic constant–which describes the expansion of the Universe-all of these must be dialed in to numeric specifications that are meticulously accurate. Gravity must be perfect in precision to 1 part in 10 to the 38th power. That is 1 with 38 following zeros– you will be writing a lot of commas. For comparison a million is 10 to the 6th power. The strong nuclear force (which keeps atomic nuclei intact) must be exactly 10 to the 40th power times stronger than gravity. The electromagnetic force has to be 10 to 43rd power stronger. The cosmologic constant must be close but slightly greater than gravity; that fine tuning is required to be precise to 1 part in 10 to the 120th power. Are you getting the picture? These are crazy numbers. Other finally tuned requirements include the velocity of light, the mass ratio of protons to neutrons, the exact but opposite charges of electron and protons, and so on.
Turn from the very tiny to the astronomical side of the leger. Our outsized Moon (at least as compared to the relative size of the moons of other planets) governs the rotation of the earth, adjusts earth’s axis, produces oceanic tides which distribute nutrients, and even intercepts space debris (though admittedly not that much- it is after all significantly smaller than its companion planet). These are not trivial performance stats-they are critical to permitting the formation and sustenance of life on earth. Looking further out in the solar system, Jupiter’s size and location are also critical to the very survival of earth. In conjunction with other gas giant plans it stabilizes the orbits of the inner planets around the sun and attracts & intercepts large numbers of comets and meteorites that otherwise would bombard the inner rocky planets (like us). Want an example? In July 1994 observers witnessed a massive comet (Shoemaker-levy-9) pulled into Jupiter’s gravitational field, fragment into multiple pieces and sequentially strike the giant planet. How big were these pieces? Several were larger than planet earth. If the comet had come near us, it would sting. For Jupiter, it was a flea bite. It is nice to have Jupiter and the other gas giants in the neighborhood.
One must also consider the amount of deadly space radiation reaching the earth’s surface, which is influenced by the size and distance from the Milky Way Galaxy’s central black hole, the strength of the earth’s magnetic field, the amount of cosmic dust that intervenes, and where we are located in the Galaxy and its spiral arms. This obeys a simple equation: too much radiation and we die. When it comes to probabilities, earth is definitely a fugitive from the law of averages.
All these forces and sub atomic constructs have to synchronize perfectly. Imagine you have 5 marbles and each has to be a perfect color. The human eye can distinguish 10,000,000 hues so for our purposes each marble has to possess that 1 in 10,000,000 light wave frequency. Pretty difficult probability to overcome. To make matters more complicated though, all 5 marble colors have to blend perfectly into that 1 perfect spectrum. We are only talking about 5 variables with the marbles, but for life to exist the number of variables is greater and the probabilities are much less. It is kind of tough to arrange conditions for life to arise and subsequently survive, especially if we are trying to create the top of the pyramid (like humans).
How does a pure materialist contrive a path to overcome these unfavorable odds? Simple. You invent a multiverse. Infinite numbers of universes. With infinite lottery tickets 1 of them has to be the winner. Problem solved. Sort of. Okay, not really. In the 1st place, the multiverse is not science. It is not even good science fiction. Frankly, it has more in common with fantasy, what the readership calls “world building” : Middle earth, Dungeons and Dragons, stuff like that. No one can test for alternate universes. The materialist says a Creator is not testable (actually there is a massive amount of evidence to suggest a Creator) but is perfectly happy to invent an alternative theory that is (guess what) not testable and to bow down before that. The entire purpose of fabricating a multiverse is to overcome all those pesky improbabilities that physics, chemistry, cosmology, and quantum mechanics have discovered and find an exit ramp from belief in God. So, let me get this straight. The materialist prefers a 1 in infinity odds rather than (to pick an example such as the precise numerical value of the cosmologic constant) 1 chance in 10 to the 120th power. On the 1 hand, I do not blame the materialist for not wanting to explain how such precision in the natural world exists. But if I remember grammar school math correctly, infinity is numerically greater than any of the astonishing probabilities we have already mentioned. By concocting the multiverse, the odds of landing on our existing universe is much worse. Infinitely worse, actually. And the multiverse sure does violate Occam’s Razor–that the simplest is best. At any rate, not even the critics of Marilyn von Savant’s recommendation would be likely to choose the multiverse door
I have covered only a small number of finally tuned parameters, but they are hyper-impressive. And did you notice something? The discussion so far has focused on physics, chemistry, cosmology-what are called the hard sciences. I have not even delved into biologic fine tuning. No references to biochemistry, genetics, cell biology, organ development and system synchronization, feedback loops, repair mechanisms, etc. These are the subjects investigated in my book God’s Human Biology: Another level of improbable circumstances. Otherwise, you do not exist.
Other authors have more elegantly discussed the fine tuning subjects: Improbable Planet (Hugh Ross), Signature in the Cell ( Stephen Meyer), Foresight (Marcos Eberlin), Ultimate Engineering (Stuart Burgess), The Privileged Planet ( Gonzalez and Richards), anything by Michael Denton, Is Atheism Dead (Eric Metaxas), to name a few. There are plenty of attacks on these authors, but such assaults do not usually focus directly on the evidence.
let’s make a bet. I will give the materialist a pond on an earth-like planet, orbiting a twin of our sun, in a Milky Way Galaxy duplicate, in exactly the same spiral arms location, with gas giants and rocky planets like our solar system. We will go back to earth conditions that existed during the age of the Cambrian Era, or the age of dinosaurs, or whatever timeframe when there is no life. Then I will provide algae, and bacteria, throw in some protozoa and fungi–I will provide all these freebies. Now here’s the bet. I will bet $100 that in 100s of millions of years if the materialist and I come back to that pond there will not be fish swimming in it, ducks floating on it, or a fisherman with a rod and reel on the shore. That’s the bet. You might argue that $100 is a paltry sum to ante up and indicates the weakness of my position, but I would point out that with compound interest over millions of years, the resulting amount would be a tidy fortune. In any event, the scenario imagined, if looked at logically, shows the virtual impossibility of the progression to a moderate day reality. And remember, I gave up a lot of free stuff to begin.
.So is there any chance of pure materialism achieving life, the universe , and everything,? I offer this possibility. In 1955, a children’s television show first aired: the Disney sponsored Mickey Mouse Club. On episode 3 of that 1st season-a Wednesday-the producers introduced Anything Can Happen Day. The title gives away the theme–probabilities were not a factor. After all, anything could happen. The concept was a resounding success, so much so that all subsequent Wednesdays continued the motif of Anything Could Happen. I offer this suggestion to the materialists– the next time a naturalistic process is proposed, submit it on a Wednesday.