Part 20 Design of the universe reveals God

Design of the Universe Reveals God

It turns out the universe is delicately balanced and extremely sensitive to change.  If that balance is upset even slightly in any one of a number of critical restrictions, the basic conditions necessary for life would never be produced.  The universe hangs balanced between life and death.  There are over 100 factors present in the universe that if one small change occurred, life on earth would be impossible.

Prior to 1980 these were referred to as the amazing coincidences of the universe.  Now they are referred to as “design parameters,” giving tacit recognition to the fact that the universe has been designed. Such design requires an intelligent designer.[1]

Today there is a term for describing the purpose of this amazing design; it is call the anthropic principle.  Simply refers to the fact the universe seems to be designed for humans to exist.  Anthro refers to man.  This principle comes from science not Christianity.  The anthropic principle was first popularized by American physicists, John Wheeler and Frank Tipler and British astronomer, John Barrow.  Wheeler writes “A life giving factor lies at the center of the whole machinery and design of the world.”[2]

Harvard educated Patrick Glynn in God: The Evidence:  “Modern thinkers assumed that science would reveal the universe to be ever more random and mechanical; instead it has discovered unexpected new layers of intricate order that bespeak an almost unimaginably vast master design.”[3]

A whole host of books have documented the anthropic principle.  There’s not much debate on this anymore.  The experts in the field are saying that the evidence for design is beyond question.  Many astronomers, physicists, and mathematicians today are theists; atheism doesn’t work in the face of so much evidence for design.

I will share a few of the evidences that shows the earth seems designed for life.  For example:

  • In our solar system the number of star companions must be right for life to be possible.  The sun must be a bachelor star.  If instead it was a binary system (two stars) that would severely disrupt the orbit of the earth and destroy the possibility of life.
  • Our sun must be the right age.  It must be middle-aged, about 5 billion years old. This is its most stable phase of burning.  A young star (first billion years) increases its luminosity rapidly because it’s burning by gravitational collapse, not nuclear energy. This cause the temperature to be erratic.  An older star burns by more exotic nuclear reactions and this also destroys its stability, making life on earth impossible.[4]

In my next post I will share additional evidences for the design of the universe needed for life to be possible on earth.

Go to part 21 here

[1] Gregory Koukl “ABC-Why I’m Not an Evolutionist” 1999

[2] Wheeler, John A., “Forward,” in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow andFrank

Tipler (Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1986), vii., quoted in Hugh Ross, The Finbgerprint of God

(Orange, CA: Promise Publishing, 1989), 120

[3] Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence (Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1997), 19.

[4] Gregory Koukl “ABC-Why I’m Not an Evolutionist” 1999

Enhanced by Zemanta
{ 15 comments… add one }
  • Tom Wright July 23, 2010, 9:34 pm

    Who offered the “design parameters” definition? ….”there’s not much debate anymore”….aren’t evolution and creationism some of the most hotly debated topics today? What ‘evidence’ is there for design?
    So you must be saying it isn’t possible for another earth to exist in the universe? Would God create 2 or more?

  • Steve August 10, 2010, 6:48 am

    My point is acknowledged by scientists Christian or otherwise; the universe seems designed. You asked for evidence of design and I provided examples in parts 20 & 21. There are an additonal 100 more evidences of design that are not in my post. What evidence do you have that all the “design” factors happened by accident? As for another earth, there is a book out by 2 scientists who after examining the odds of life on earth, actually reached that conclusion that another planet with complex life like earth is impossible. I cannot remember the name of the book.

    Bottom line you choose by faith to believe in the impossible and I like my odds, that God is the creator.

  • Tom Wright August 23, 2010, 8:52 pm

    In my opinion, there’s not enough evidence on either side to draw definite conclusions. Your evidence consists of one principle: conditions for life on earth must be prefect, and chance alone is not a strong enough argument, therefore, a supernatural force created it. Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers except the ones backed by scientific evidence….and the answers will come in time….witness the discovery of DNA and how it proves the migration of early man out of Africa and into the rest of the world.

  • Steve August 26, 2010, 6:06 am

    In my conclusion to “God as the Creator part 13” I wrote reasons why the answer, “science will discover the answers within the next 25 years” is a weak response. Here’s what I wrote (Originally from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason

    Let me make four quick observations about this remark.
    − First, it’s a tacit admission they [scientists] don’t have the evidence.
    − Second, the intelligent design answer is not a default position based on what we don’t know (God of the gaps), but rather on what we do know.
    − Third, sometimes the current evidence is so decisive, it’s hard to imagine it being overturned.
    − Finally, what really matters is the evidence at hand, not what might be produced in the future (no science of the gaps). When, and if, new facts come to light, then we’re free to reassess. The most useful conclusions are based on present facts, not future fantasies[1].

    You say “Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers except the ones backed by scientific evidence.” In a sense this statement is true but time and time again I have read scientists reaching conclusions based on worldview or philosophy rather than evidence. The majority of the time the evidence scientists point to supports microevolution and establishes the principle of natural selection as the means to bring about small changes. As I said before I have no problem with microevolution. However, when science wants to establish macroevolution the evidence seems to be scant or non-existent. This is when the scientist projects what could have happened as if it is a fact. In the recent National Geographic article on whales the scientist, who was quoted in the article, called his explanation of whale evolution a “story.” Stories are not facts; they are usually based on a prior commitment to Darwinian Evolution and are lacking in evidence.

    Concerning DNA, I would be careful using this as an example. DNA is loaded with information and 100% of the time (outside of biology) when we find information we look for an intelligent source. And the migration of early man out of Africa supports the Biblical account.

    Tom I hope this is helpful.

  • Tom Wright September 6, 2010, 9:33 pm

    Isn’t evolution described as a theory, because the evidence is slowly being discovered over time? Science doesn’t try to portray all parts of evolution as irrefutable.
    In the dictionary, proof is a synonym for evidence. How many scientists agree with the mathematical formula for the probability of a twin universe? Is one person’s formula proof/evidence? I would have the same question about some of the other statements presented as facts.
    More than once, you use the term “seems designed”, yet seem dogmatic in attempting to prove creation as fact. Which is it?
    If all the evidence you cite in favor of creationism is so strong, why hasn’t it overturned evolution and taught as fact in biology and the other science curricula? I remember discussing this one with you on one of our rides, and I think your point was that believing scientists/professors would lose their jobs/grants if they espoused religion. But if the evidence of creationism was irrefutable, there would be mass protests featured in the media. We would hear about it.
    Which brings up another question….doesn’t creationism imply a deity? If it does, doesn’t this imply a religion? If this is so, wouldn’t we then be teaching religion in public schools?

  • Steve September 11, 2010, 7:08 am

    The problem with the multi-universe theory (twin universes) is there is no proof for the theory. It is unlikely any proof is even possible. This theory was developed to counter the evidence for design. Scientists who hold this view think that if you have billions of universes then it increases the probability one of them would support life. For the sake of argument let’s say billions of universes do exist. What these scientists fail to understand is every universe that gets created the improbable odds for life 1 chance in 10 to the 138,000 power is applied to each new universe; life is still virtually impossible. Also how did the first universe get started? You have the same problem outlined in my series concerning the big bang theory. This multi-universe theory seems to be based more on philosophy and speculation rather than science. A theory like this shows how far scientists will go to avoid an intelligent designer.

    The use of “seemed designed” actually is used to avoid sounding dogmatic. Yes I present strong evidence, but I don’t have all knowledge and could be wrong. I just go with the evidence and I believe the case is very strong for an intelligent designer.

    If my evidence is so strong why hasn’t it overturned academia in the area of evolution? The following was taken from the teaching, “Science & Faith: Are They Compatible?” ©1998 Gregory Koukl of Stand to Reason. He says this about science protecting Darwinian evolution:

    This Science involves the philosophy. Naturalistic materialism: matter and energy governed by natural law. Any view that doesn’t conform to naturalistic materialism is not scientific.

    This raises a troublesome question: If…

    Any view supported by the methodology is scientific, and any view that doesn’t conform to naturalistic materialism is not scientific, then what if the methodology, properly applied, produces results inconsistent with the philosophy? The philosophy always trumps the methodology. Evolution is a case in point. But when facts suggest design, the second definition is invoked.

    Any scientific methodology (first definition) that supports intelligent design is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition) as “religion disguised as science.” Notice how Futuyma conflates these definitions in the following statement taken from Science on Trial: “The Case for Evolution, the most widely used college evolutionary textbook”: “The fact is, in a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for supernatural special creation. Belief in special creation must rest on faith, on the authority of the Bible and its most literal interpreters. The fundamental conflict, then, is between two incompatible ways to knowledge. Science emphasizes evidence and logical deduction, and is forever uncertain. It deals not with irrefutable facts engraved on stone tablets, but with hypotheses that may be refuted by tomorrow’s experiments and concepts formulated by fallible human minds. The best scientific education encourages skepticism, questioning, independent thought, and the use of reason.”

    At first blush it seems like evolution is about scientific facts. How does Douglas Futuyma know in advance there “can be no evidence for supernatural special creation”? Because it’s stipulated by definition. Even if evidence is available, it cannot be allowed. Further, no independent thought regarding the fact of evolution (as opposed to the method of evolution) is allowed either, in spite of Futuyma’s assertions to the contrary. Any denial of evolution is simply not “science.” [End of quote]

    The reason intelligent design doesn’t have widespread acceptance is because philosophy always wins in the end. The naturalistic materialistic philosophy has such a stronghold on the scientific community; if you deny it then your job could be on the line. This keeps many of the intelligent design scientists quiet.

    I agree creationism does imply a deity. However, intelligent design doesn’t. I am not arguing for creationism in schools. In fact until intelligent design matures in presenting evidence, I am not for teaching intelligent design in schools. What I am for is to present the weaknesses of evolution in schools. Scientists continue to argue against teaching any weaknesses for evolution, even though they acknowledge them, because they feel it teaches religion. Doesn’t this sound absurd? How does weakness in evolution promote religion? Scientists want students to develop critical thinking skills but they want to hide from them any counter evidence that makes their view seem implausible. If you don’t present both sides of an argument, how do you develop critical thinking skills in students?

  • Tom Wright October 13, 2010, 7:18 pm

    What is the “philosophy of science”, unless it is a methodology to test facts? Science deals only in facts. What is the difference between creationism and design? If intelligent design doesn’t imply designer what does it imply? (see your last sentence in paragraph #1) In your last paragraph you say that scientists continue to argue against teaching any weaknesses………my understanding is that evolution is just a theory at this point and science readily admits there are gaps and unexplainable blind alleys, but by doing so they aren’t promoting religion, they are stating a fact.
    Interesting thread….

  • Steve October 18, 2010, 6:08 pm

    Science is actually under the discipline of philosophy. Science cannot function without using the tools of philosophy. Science looks at facts and then uses philosophy to interpret those facts. Let me give you an example:

    There are over 100 facts that point to the design of the universe. Change one small degree in any one of these parameters and life is not possible on the earth. These facts are well known. The next step for a scientist is the interpretation of these facts. The obvious answer is wherever you find incredible design the best explanation is a designer. However, here is where the philosophy of science comes into play. The current reigning philosophy of science is naturalistic materialism (natural world is all there is; there is no supernatural) then a designer is thrown out as an explanation. Was it discarded because of the facts of science? No it was eliminated because of the philosophy of science. As I said philosophy, not the facts, wins every time.

    Creationism usually refers to certain Christians who argue for a young earth.

    The argument for design falls under the discipline of Intelligent Design. Intelligent design does argue for a designer. It just does not imply God. The designers could be aliens from another galaxy.

    Your statement evolution is just a theory is correct. However, many scientists dogmatically proclaim you have to be an idiot if you don’t believe in macro evolution. And very few in public will admit to weaknesses in the theory. They hide this information so as to not give intelligent design people something to strengthen their case. They don’t want weaknesses taught because they believe it does support religious beliefs. I agree with you, when they state gaps in their theory they are stating facts. But they don’t want the general public to know these facts.

  • Tom Wright October 21, 2010, 8:20 pm

    Isn’t the “current reigning philosophy”, the scientific study of the natural world? Hasn’t it always been thus? Science hasn’t found any evidence of the supernatural. Isn’t that why it is “thrown out” as a consideration? It WAS discarded because of the facts of science. Do you think science is suppressing evidence of the supernatural?

    If Intelligent Design doesn’t imply a God, is your church suggesting aliens are responsible? Why would the whole of conservative Christians be advocating ID if they didn’t believe God was the designer?

    I’ve subscribed to National Geographic for 40 years and I can’t remember ever reading that evolution is solved. You’re saying there’s an organized effort to cover up weaknesses in the theory??

  • Steve October 27, 2010, 6:29 am

    Yes the current scientific philosophy is naturalistic materialism (natural world is all there is; there is no supernatural). This is a recent event and historically science was open to finding the best explanation of the facts. In fact Christianity played a major role in establishing modern science.

    Today all explanations have to fit the philosophy; science is only interested in finding the truth as long as it agrees with naturalistic materialism. To say science hasn’t found any evidence for the supernatural is simply to agree with the naturalistic philosophy of science. If all the facts point to a supernatural explanation, then according to the current philosophy of science, the conclusion must be thrown out. Do you think this is the way to do science? Instead of the search for truth, science today is the search for what agrees with the reigning philosophy. I demonstrated multiple lines of evidence of intelligent design in my blogs but it is all thrown out because of the philosophy. The facts aren’t thrown out, just the conclusion. This is why 95% of the population believes in the supernatural; the evidence is obvious and overwhelming. However, science rules it out before examining the evidence.

    Intelligent design is a scientific discipline and not a church position. The church believes in the Biblical God and if the scientific findings of intelligent design support that position, then great. However, ID and the church are separate. Intelligent design works with the facts of science, not the doctrines of the church.

    I am not sure it is an “organized effort” but there is a media cover up. When scientists are not talking with the media, they readily admit multiple problems with Darwinian Evolution. They think if they admit weaknesses to the media, the public will begin to question their cherished theory. However, here and there honest atheistic scientists open up to the media. If you have time read Michael Denton’s “Evolution a Theory in Crisis.” As an atheistic scientist (major player in microbiology) he totally dismantled Darwinian Evolution. Michael is no fan of Christianity. Here is a quote from his book, “The Darwinian theory is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century…like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced.”
    Here is James Shapiro commenting on microbiologist Michael Behe’s book, “Darwin’s Black Box.” Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe’s work: “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject–evolution–with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.”

    Here is another scientist: Niles Eldridge, one of the world’s leading experts in vertebrate fossils, describes the actual situation paleontologists face:
    “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yield zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change–over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.”

    One final quote to sum it up: Richard Lewontin, Harvard Genetics Professor, makes this remarkable admission in The New York Review of Books:
    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

    Richard Lewontin is a scientist at the highest order admits there is a cover-up. National Geographic is simply driven by philosophy and only presents what that philosophy dictates. All articles must push philosophical naturalism or it is not accepted. Many intelligent design articles are rejected by this magazine and other scientific journals on philosophical grounds and not on the facts of science.

  • Tom Wright November 6, 2010, 9:10 pm

    The Skeptic article I sent seems logical: If a supernatural event cannot be supported by the laws of physics, it could not have happened……

  • Steve November 28, 2010, 6:00 am

    Your comment, if a supernatural event cannot be supported by the laws of physics, it…and then you end. Do you mean couldn’t have occurred? Is this what you meant? As you read my reply, your thoughts right now cannot be supported by the laws of physics…does that mean they never occurred? I hope you see how silly this statement is.

    There is an excellent article written by Greg Koukl on the new book by Stephen Hawkings. It will make you think and answer some of the contentions of the skeptic in the article you sent me. You can find it at:


  • Tom Wright December 13, 2010, 8:50 pm

    Steve; You wrote;
    As you read my reply, your thoughts right now cannot be supported by the laws of physics…does that mean they never occurred?………
    Are you comparing my thoughts, a biological process, with supernatural religious events such as the biblical account of Jesus walking on water, a “physical event?” Help me here!!
    I the text above your answer of the 29th, various scientists admit the weaknesses of Darwin’s theory, which isn’t news. But they imply that Creationism isn’t being given a chance to compete for credulity. if they’re scientists, how can they ignore the laws of physics when espousing Creationism?

  • Steve December 15, 2010, 2:59 pm

    Jesus walking on water was a supernatural event. The Cambridge Dictionary defines supernatural as: caused by forces that cannot be explained by science. Therefore, science (physics) cannot prove or disprove a supernatural event.

    You use the classic term to discount what I believe “creationism” instead of intelligent design. Creationism is tied to the Bible and yet my posts related to Establishing God as Creator I didn’t use the Bible to make my case; instead I used science. Even though science cannot directly make the case for God, it can indirectly by providing physical evidence that is best explained by an intelligent designer. If you could, in the future please refer to my position as Intelligent Design.

    You say your thoughts are a biological process; how much do they weigh? Do longer words weigh more than short ones? Since thoughts are biological and therefore physical, where in the brain can I see my thoughts? Are you aware scientists struggle with the existence of consciousness? If thoughts are physical they have a location, why haven’t scientists found them? Why can’t they read them?

    Intelligent design scientists don’t ignore physics. Physics and other sciences are utilized to make the case for the existence of an intelligent designer. I am not sure where you got the idea from my posts that I don’t use physics. All through my posts on Establishing God as Creator I utilized physics and astronomy (and other sciences) to show evidence for creation.


  • Tom Wright December 15, 2010, 4:41 pm

    If a described event violates the laws of physics why wouldn’t this fact be strong enough to discount the event?
    Don’t understand where you’re going with the weight of my thoughts…..

Leave a Comment

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Next post:

Previous post:

Do Objective Morals Exist?
Answering Tough Questions
Counting the Cost
Is God the Author of the Bible?
God’s Holiness and Love Wins
Ministering to Mormons in Utah
Challenging a Jehovah’s Witness
What Ever Happened to Hell?
Accurately Interpreting the Scriptures
Understanding the Christian Worldview
Accused of Partnering in Wickedness
Set Apart Christ as Lord
Sharing with Knowledge & Wisdom
Becoming a Good Ambassador for Christ
How to Persuade Others

Video Introduction

Exposing the Deceit of the Watchtower Organization
Go to Site Map
About Us | Statement of Faith | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Site Map
Never Miss an UPDATE Simply Enter Your Best Email