The Fine-Tuning Argument

The Teleological (or Design) Argument is one of the classical arguments for the existence of God. It predates even Christianity in ancient Greek culture and references the order, complexity, and purposefulness found in nature to suggest that it, in fact, does have a designer. In modern times our increased understanding of physics, chemistry, and cosmology have added a new dimension to this argument. It seems that there are numerous “anthropic coincidences” found in the laws of physics, that is to say, the laws seem to be fine-tuned for a life-permitting universe. This observation has come to be know as the fine-tuning argument (FTA).

Theoretical astrophysicist, Luke A Barnes, describes it this way:

[I]s there something about our universe that is noteworthy or rare or clever or unexpected? The Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA) for the existence of God puts forward just such a fact. The claim is that the existence of a universe that supports the complexity required by physical life forms is remarkable. To be sure, it is a familiar fact—after all, we exist. But new information has seemingly made this familiar fact into an astounding one: in the set of fundamental parameters (constants and initial conditions) of nature, such as the cosmological constant and the strength of electromagnetism, an extraordinarily small subset would have resulted in a universe able to support the complexity required by life. This is known as the fine-tuning of the universe for life.

Evolution’s Failed Predictions and Unfalsifiability

The history of modern biological studies is filled with “surprising” and “unexpected” findings that were not at all predicted by evolutionary theory, in fact, in some cases, quite the opposite was predicted.  And yet, unlike other theories that face counter-intuitive evidence, this theory continues to remain fundamentally unquestioned as a matter of scientific orthodoxy.  Curiously, these findings only seem to increase the faith in the mysterious power of evolution to “solve problems,” even if we cannot work out how it has done so.  No matter how astonishing or unexpected our discoveries, they must somehow be pigeonholed into the theory, because “it has to be true” — the alternative is unthinkable.  For this reason, it has been accused of being an unfalsifiable theory. Fazale Rana, in this related article, described the heart of the problem this way:

“In effect, methodological naturalism restricts the available explanations for the universe and phenomena within the universe such as the origin and history of life. Certain explanations are off the table, a priori. As a consequence, intelligent design/creationism cannot be part of the construct of science.”

Some of the kinds of natural predictions that the unguided, trial-and-error, slow and incremental process that is evolution include are that resulting DNA should be messy and ad hoc, nature should seldom find the same solutions, and species should be quite similar and absolute novelty a rarity. Below I will list some of these unexpected and counter-intuitive discoveries, primarily in the realm of genetics where ironclad support for evolution is often alleged.

A Conversation on Atheism and Meaning

Theophilus: “Lucretius, my friend, as an atheist what would you say is the meaning of life?”

Lucretius: “There’s no actual meaning to life, in the strict sense of that word. But you’re free to define your own.”

Theophilus: “Okay. Christianity is meaningful to me.”

Lucretius: “Fine, so long as you keep it to yourself.”

Theophilus: “But it teaches that I should do good things, resist evil, do justice, and make disciples.”

Lucretius: “The ‘good’ and ‘justice’ part are fine, but don’t push this on anyone else.”

Theophilus: “So, what is ‘good’?”