Introduction

Intelligent design is the idea that an intelligence far greater than human intellect was capable of creating the universe including our earth. However, numerous people across the world do not believe that there is any scientific evidence for intelligent design. Many people say that they see no real proof or evidence for intelligent design, so they have other theories and ideas to the universe’s existence and beginning. Contrarily, there are some who believe that there is scientific evidence that intelligent design is probable and reasonable. 

 

Simple Examples of Intelligent Design

Consider Mount Rushmore in South Dakota as an example of intelligent design. Did the four presidents, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson, magically appear on Mount Rushmore one day due to chance from erosion or the weather? No, of course not. Someone created and shaped their four unique faces onto the mountain with careful and methodical craftsmanship. Weathering and erosion could not have created something as glorious or beautiful by chance. It is highly likely to believe that Borglum designed Mt. Rushmore very carefully and intelligently with dynamite, hammers, drills, and chisels with help of 400 workers [1].

Take sand castle building as another example. We cannot confidently kick up sand at the beach and hope to form a sand castle. However, there is a very small chance that kicking up sand will form a sand castle, but it is highly unlikely to happen. It is more probable for someone to spend time, energy, and effort with great focus and attention to detail to confidently and intelligently form a sand castle than to expect someone to kick up sand and form a sand castle. 

Instead of designing something or building something, say you have a problem of opening a combination lock. Imagine that someone asked you to open a combination lock without telling you the combination. If the combination lock has several numbers or requires several turns, the odds of opening it on the very first try is extremely unlikely. Even if you had several attempts and ample time to try out many possible combinations, it would take a very long time. However, if you already knew the combination ahead of time, then it would be a piece of cake to open it. 

 

Origin of the Universe

Now, let us circle back to considering bigger problems and questions like the origin of the universe. A popular theory to the origin of the universe is the big bang theory. Roger Penrose calculated that the chance of the universe having an initial low entropy state is about 1 in 10123 [2]. If the universe did not start with a low initial entropy, then it would not be able to expand correctly to support and sustain life today. For some context, Borel’s law of probability says that 1 in 1050 is considered impossible [3]. Since the chance that the universe started in a small entropy state is about half of that, it is fair and logical to say that it is impossible that the universe started with a low initial entropy. However, life exists on Earth, so perhaps it is not impossible for the universe to have started with a low initial entropy. Perhaps, the universe was designed with extreme precision and tuning. 

 

Fine-Tuned Universe

The universe that we live in is cosmically fine-tuned such that our universe supports and sustains life. There are many features and constants that support chemical-based life. The late, great, and renowned physicist, Stephen Hawking, said that “the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers [the constants of physics] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” There are twenty-two examples of fine-tuning in the universe, and the main categories of fine-tuning are cosmic constants, initial conditions or brute facts, and local features of habitable planets. Examples of fine-tuned cosmic constants are the gravitational force constant, electromagnetic force constant, strong and nuclear force constants, and cosmological constant. Initial conditions or brute facts include the initial distribution of mass energy, the ratio of masses for protons and electrons, the velocity of light, and the mass excess of neutron over proton. There are several local planetary conditions such as steady plate tectonics with the right kind of geological interior, the right amount of water in the crust, a large moon with the right rotation period, the right concentration of sulfur, and the right planetary mass. Water is an effect of primary fine-tuned parameters, which makes it very unique for life. If the water molecule were too big or too small, its values for heat of diffusion and vaporization would make it unsuitable for life [4]. Logically, we can see that cosmic fine-tuning shows a meaningful pattern or functional outcome such as supporting and sustaining life.

Thus, Earth is the Goldilocks of all the known planets to support and sustain life. It is not too hot and not too cold. It is not too far and not too close. Everything is just right. All organisms on Earth are very lucky and fortunate to live on a Goldilocks type of planet, or someone or something carefully designed the Earth to support and sustain life. It must take supreme intelligence and careful tuning to choose what constants would be needed to sustain life and support life. If so, that supreme intellect could fine-tune life on its first attempt without needing any additional chances to unlock the combination or cracking the code to support life. 

So what made our universe “fine-tuned?” Some people state a multiple-universe (multiverse) theory such that there is a universe-creating machine out there somewhere, and by chance, we happen to be fortunate enough to be living in one of the universes that are fine-tuned to support life. However, there is an unanswered question: what created the universe-making machine? It had to have something natural or supernatural create it, so it cannot come from nothing. Another problem for multiverse advocates is that there is no concrete evidence that other universes exist. We only have evidence that there is one universe, our universe [5]. 

 

Weak Anthropic Principle

An argument against a fine-tuned universe is the weak anthropic principle. It states that “the universe might be observed to be is limited by the fact that observation requires the existence of observers. It is impossible to observe a universe that does not permit the existence of observers; only a universe that permits the existence of observers could be observed.” In other words, our observed universe exists because we can observe it. Since our universe has observers (life), we should not be surprised to observe that our universe exists. Also, life in the universe is fine-tuned to yield life, aka observers [6]. This is quite confusing and circular because it does not answer why a fine-tuned universe exists. It just states an observed and fine-tuned universe exists, which is equivalent to saying that life exists. 

Consider following a recipe to bake a cake for someone’s upcoming birthday. You gather all the ingredients and measure them out to the required proportions. Then, you mix them and insert them into the oven to bake. Once it finishes baking, you add frosting and other toppings. Finally, you bring the birthday cake to the birthday party for everyone to eat. They enjoy it and ask for the recipe because they want to know how you made such a delicious cake. You respond that the delicious birthday cake exists and is delicious because they saw it, ate it, and realized it was delicious. They are left disappointed and confused that they did not receive the recipe when you could have clearly told them the recipe. They expected you to explain how you carefully fine-tuned the ingredients to produce a delicious birthday cake. Instead, they are left distraught and wondering how you baked a delicious birthday cake and what its ingredients were. They go home asking questions like, “why was the birthday cake so delicious?”, “what were its ingredients?” and “where can I find the recipe?” Ultimately, the weak anthropic principle cannot answer important questions like “why is our universe fine-tuned?” and “what is the origin of life?” It merely states the obvious without further reasons or more profound insight into the origin of life or a fine-tuned universe.

 

Redshift

The redshift shows that our universe is not static but dynamic by expanding. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies appeared to be moving away from us, which means we live in an expanding universe. He noticed that the galaxies farther away from us had larger redshifts, i.e., farther galaxies appeared redder [7]. Contrarily, galaxies moving closer to us would appear bluer, which would mean we live in a shrinking universe. An expanding universe implies that it had a beginning and had a cause [8]. The famous Big Bang theory tells us a possible explanation about the universe’s origin. However, it does not explain what caused the Big Bang or what made the recipe for our fine-tuned universe. The key takeaway here is that the redshift shows we live in an expanding universe. Since we live in a fine-tuned universe, it is feasible that intelligent design used the Big Bang or another large-scale event to intelligent design and create both an expanding and fine-tuned universe. 

 

Steady-state theory

The steady-state theory is another alternative theory to the Big Bang theory but is now obsolete. It states that the universe is infinite, always constant, and does not have large-scale changes over time. It accepts small-scale changes such as births and deaths of stars. It also involves the births of new galaxies such that the average distance between galaxies never changes even though we observe the galaxies moving farther away from us. For all regions in the universe at any point in time, the steady-state theory assumes an observer would measure the same values of “the average density of the universe, average distance between galaxies, the average brightness of galaxies, and the how the speed that galaxies are moving away varies with their distance.”  The steady-state theory is no longer viable because of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is supposedly the aftermath of the Big Bang theory [9]. Stephen Hawking buried the steady-state theory when he said, “the Steady State theory was what Karl Popper would call a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified.”

 

Oscillation theory

Besides the Big Bang and steady-state theories, the oscillation theory explains that the universe has an expansion and contraction phase, so it has a Big Bang and a Big Crunch. The Big Bang states the universe was initially tightly dense and hot before exploding and expanding, while the Big Crunch says that the universe will have a big collapse. However, cosmic background radiation shows an expanding universe, so a Big Freeze or Heat Death is more likely than a Big Crunch [10]. Having a Big Freeze or Heat Death matches the first law of thermodynamics: all the energy and matter in the universe cannot be created or destroyed [11]. Energy conversion with heat will eventually result in a cold universe when all the heat vanishes. The oscillation theory is like stretching out a rubber band (Big Bang) and letting go to snap back into a condensed form (Big Crunch). However, if you continue stretching the rubber band, it will eventually break (Big Freeze or Heat Death), so it will not be able to return to its original form. Even if the Big Crunch happened, we would not be around to confirm the theory. 

 

Conclusion

Overall, there is scientific evidence that intelligent design is likely. A fine-tuned universe suggests that there must have been intelligence involved in engineering the universe and the chance of everything being perfect could not have possibly happened. Naturalist views of chance could not have been probable enough to create a fine-tuned universe. Unfortunately, many people associate intelligent design with God as Creator of the universe. Note that this article is not saying that God exists because Creation is not mentioned anywhere here. The key takeaway of this article is that intelligent design is a reasonable and likely hypothesis for explaining the origin of the universe without any religious, philosophical, or theological arguments or implications. 

References

 

[1]	History.com, “Mount Rushmore,” 10 January 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/mount-rushmore-1.
[2]	R. Patterson, “The Fine Tuned Universe,” 12 January 2022. [Online]. Available: https://thefinetuneduniverse.com/?p=4.
[3]	R. Taylor, “Borel’s Law of Probability,” 2022 February 2022. [Online]. Available: https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability.
[4]	Evolution News and Science Today, “Fine-Tuning Parameters,” [Online]. Available: https://evolutionnews.org/i/fine-tuning-parameters/.
[5]	P. Sutter, “What is multiverse theory?,” 23 August 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.livescience.com/multiverse.
[6]	T. Holt, “The Weak Anthropic Principle,” 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.philosophyofreligion.uk/theistic-proofs/the-teleological-argument/the-argument-from-fine-tuning/the-weak-anthropic-principle/.
[7]	P. Newman, “Redshift and Hubble’s Law,” [Online]. Available: https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html.
[8]	C. Luskin, “The Top Six Lines of Evidence for Intelligent Design,” 25 February 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.discovery.org/a/sixfold-evidence-for-intelligent-design/.
[9]	S. Hurley, “The Steady State Theory,” 25 July 2015. [Online]. Available: https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/25/the-steady-state-theory/.
[10]	J. C. Villanueva, “What is the Oscillating Universe Theory?,” 24 August 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-theory/.
[11]	M. J. Moran, H. N. Shapiro, D. D. Boettner and M. B. Bailey, Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 8th ed., Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

 

 

 

 

Author Bio:

Dr. Evan Kawamura received his PhD and BS degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Hawaii: Manoa, and his research interests include autonomy, targeting, guidance, navigation, and control. He is a NASA Ames researcher working on aerospace applications and enjoys reading, playing video/computer games, playing music, and playing basketball. 

Disclaimer: His thoughts and opinions are his own and not that of NASA.