Expositing Reality Part 1: Design

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” -Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins posits that the universe’s properties align perfectly with the absence of design, purpose, good, or evil, suggesting that naturalistic or atheistic worldviews offer a more accurate explanation of reality than Christian or theistic perspectives. But is this truly the case?

I argue that the Christian worldview provides a more comprehensive explanation of the reality we observe than the naturalistic worldview espoused by individuals like Richard Dawkins. To clarify, I am referring to an atheistic worldview rooted in complete naturalistic materialism. If one’s worldview denies the existence of a designer, objective morality, an immaterial mind, and free will, it becomes exceedingly challenging to account for the various facets of reality and everyday experience. In this series of articles I will go over the various areas of reality that any worldview needs to explain and show why Christianity offers a better explanation that atheistic naturalism.

Design to Permit Life

Consider the first example: Design. Does the universe appear as you would expect if it were not designed? I invite you to ponder the fine-tuning of the universe for the potentiality of life. Please note that by “finely tuned for the potential of life,” I don’t imply that life should be ubiquitous. I merely suggest that the universe is finely tuned to, at the very least, allow the possibility of life. Recent scientific discoveries have revealed that the laws and constants of the universe are so finely tuned that even slight alterations could render life impossible.

Here are some examples of this fine-tuning:

Gravitational constant: This is a fundamental constant that measures the strength of gravity. Fine-tuning refers to the precision required for the gravitational force to allow the formation of stars and planets. If it were off by 1 part in 10^34, stars couldn’t form or would burn up too quickly.

Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: This ratio describes the strength of electromagnetism compared to gravity. A deviation of 1 part in 10^37 could result in a universe where chemical bonds are not stable, making complex chemistry and life as we know it impossible.

Cosmological constant: This constant is associated with the energy density of space, or “dark energy,” which is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. A variation of 1 part in 10^120 could either cause the universe to collapse in on itself or expand so rapidly that stars and galaxies couldn’t form.

Mass density of the universe: This refers to the average mass per unit volume of the universe. A fine-tuning of 1 part in 10^59 is crucial for the formation of galaxies and larger structures in the universe.

Expansion rate of the universe: This is related to the speed at which the universe is expanding. A change of 1 part in 10^55 could prevent the universe from expanding at a rate that allows for the formation of stars, planets, and ultimately life.

Initial Entropy. Entropy is a measure of disorder or randomness in a system, and the universe’s initial entropy was extremely low, indicating a highly ordered state. Mathematical Physicist Roger Penrose calculated the odd of the initial low entropy of the universe by chance being 1 part in 10^(10 *123). Without this low entropy cosmic structures like galaxies, stars and planets couldn’t have formed. Penrose states, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 10^10(123).”

There doesn’t appear to be any natural reason why these values are what they are, and the odds of them attaining these values by chance seem astronomically improbable. As Atheist Physicist Sir Fred Hoyle said: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

A common objection raised is the anthropic principle, which essentially says, “We shouldn’t be surprised that we observe a universe that permits life as we wouldn’t exist to observe it if it didn’t.” Canadian Philosopher John Leslie provides a useful analogy to understand the flaw in this line of thinking. Imagine facing execution by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all aiming directly at your heart. You hear the command: ready, aim, fire! After the deafening sound of 100 guns firing, you find yourself unharmed. Would you say, “I shouldn’t be surprised that I am alive otherwise I wouldn’t be here to observe that I am still alive”? Of course not! You should still be surprised that you are alive given the enormous improbability of 100 trained marksmen all missing. In fact, you would probably conclude that they must have missed on purpose, or in other words, that it was by design.

Just because we exist to observe a universe doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t still surprise us. It is still extraordinary, given the vast improbability, that the fundamental laws and constants have the values they do or that they even exist at all. Why, on the naturalistic materialist view, would these values even exist and have just the values needed to permit life? Christianity provides an easy answer: an intelligent God created the universe according to orderly natural laws to allow for the existence of agents. The atheistic naturalist materialist is left just scratching their heads.

Design for Scientific Discoverability

Another compelling example that aligns with the Christian worldview is the apparent design of the universe for discoverability. Even within the minuscule range of values for the fundamental laws and constants that permit life, it seems improbable that the universe would be as conducive to scientific discovery as it is. American Philosopher Robin Collins discusses numerous examples of the universe’s fine-tuning for scientific discovery in the book “2 Dozen or So Arguments for the Existence of God”. These examples include low entropy throughout the universe, the fine structure constant, the baryon to photon ratio, and about eight other examples in particle physics.

Consider the first two examples. There’s no discernible reason why the entire universe would have low entropy throughout. It would be much more likely that there would be a small pocket of order for life to form, but in such a case, we would not observe other galaxies and know things like the universe began with the Big Bang. Additionally, if the value of the fine structure constant, which governs the strength of the electromagnetic force, was slightly increased, we would never be able to harness fire, which is indispensable for scientific discovery. If it was slightly weaker, then fire would be harder to put out, wood would likely be scarce due to uncontrollable forest fires, and our ability to use light microscopes, electric transformers, motors, magnetic compasses, and paleomagnetic dating would be greatly diminished. Robin Collins is not alone in pointing this out. Albert Einstein also highlighted the miraculous discoverability of the universe in his article “Physics and Reality” in the Journal of the Franklin Institute (March 1936). Mark Steiner presented a wide variety of additional examples of how the universe seems “user-friendly” in ‘Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem’.

If there was no purpose behind the universe, then why should we expect it to be discoverable and user-friendly? This question is challenging to answer from an atheist perspective, but the Christian has a straightforward answer: God designed it so that we can worship Him by learning about His creation. As stated in Psalm 19:1 (ESV), “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”

Design for Mathematical Applicability

Our next point of discussion is what physicist Eugene Wigner referred to as “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”. Philosopher William Lane Craig summarizes it this way: “How is it that a mathematical theorist like Peter Higgs can sit at his desk, delve into mathematical equations, and predict the existence of a fundamental particle, which experimentalists are finally able to detect 30 years later, after investing millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours? Mathematics is the language of nature. But how can this be explained?”

On the atheistic naturalist worldview, there doesn’t seem to be any reason why the universe must be intelligible by the rules of mathematics. Why isn’t the structure of the universe chaotic or at least far beyond human comprehension? Even in a universe that permits life, why would we expect it to be simple enough to be understandable by mathematics?

Furthermore, this problem persists whether one is a realist or anti-realist about mathematical objects. As William Lane Craig states, “If you are a realist about abstract objects and you are not a theist, then it is inexplicable why the physical world would be imbued with a mathematical structure of these causally irrelevant, non-spatio-temporal, abstract entities. On the other hand, if you are a non-theistic anti-realist and you think that these are just fictions in our minds, then how is it that the physical world is structured in terms of these fictions?” Either way, the atheist faces something that seems inexplicable on their worldview.

On the other hand, the christian theist can easily explain this as we believe in a loving God who designed the universe according to His blueprint. The mathematical structure we observe would be just what we would expect of a God who created us and wants us to know Him through His creation, which coheres perfectly with Christian predictions.

Design of Life on Earth

When one examines the intricacy of DNA and the wealth of information it holds, it’s hard not to infer a design. Critics often counter this by citing the theory of evolution, but does it truly offer an alternative explanation? In their book, “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,” physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler outline ten steps in human evolution, including the development of an endoskeleton and aerobic respiration. What’s striking about these steps is their improbability. Each step is so unlikely that, before it could occur, the sun would have exhausted its main sequence lifespan and incinerated the Earth. As philosopher William Lane Craig puts it, “If evolution did occur, it would be nothing short of a miracle, thus serving as evidence for the existence of God.” The authors conclude that it’s improbable that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.

But how probable is evolution from a Christian perspective? While it might not be the first conclusion drawn from reading the Bible, many theistic evolutionists find support within the Christian tradition. St. Augustine, writing 1400 years before Darwin, suggested that the days in Genesis need not be interpreted literally. He spoke of animals originating from “primordial seeds” and compared their development to trees growing in their own time. According to Augustine, animals could have been imbued with certain potentials that naturally evolved over time. While this isn’t identical to Darwin’s theory of evolution, it does illustrate a gradual process unfolding over time in accordance with natural laws, which is not out of bounds in the Christian theological tradition.

While evolution is often seen as contradicting the traditional Christian narrative, it appears more probable within Christianity than within atheistic naturalism. The Christian theist might face challenging theological questions when reconciling evolution, but it’s within the realm of possibilities, unlike the atheistic view that requires a miracle tenfold without a miracle worker.

Conclusion for Design

There’s compelling evidence suggesting that reality bears the marks of design. Atheistic naturalists must stack improbability upon improbability to explain the universe as we observe it. They need a universe fine-tuned for life, further fine-tuned for discovery, and coincidentally structured mathematically in a way we can comprehend. Even with all these conditions met, it’s still improbable that intelligent beings would exist to make use of it, given the improbabilities involved in evolution.

On the contrary, the Christian theist can coherently interpret the data regarding life’s fine-tuning, discoverability, and the mathematical structure of the universe. We can also provide a more plausible explanation for the origin of life, either through a traditional design account or a theistic evolutionary account, than the atheistic naturalist can. While evolution might seem odd from a Christian theistic perspective, it’s at least within the realm of possibilities, whereas on atheism, it appears to be an extraordinarily improbable miracle. Please keep in mind that this article only acts as a cursory overview the these arguments and the debates surrounding them. I will develop more in depth posts in the future that go into more detail but for now I believed it prudent to put up this more popular level treatment. In our part 2, we will explore the evidence for morality, free will, and consciousness.