He Tries to Revive Interest in the Already-Falsified Theory of Cosmological Natural Selection

Scientists have long been bothered by why the physical conditions, laws and fundamental constants of the universe seem to be so fine-tuned to allow the existence of planets such as ours and living beings such as us. On page 235 of his book Chaos and Harmony, a University of Virginia professor of astronomy (Trinh Xuan Thuan) stated this:

"The evolution of the cosmos is determined by initial conditions (such as the initial rate of expansion and the initial mass of matter), as well as by fifteen or so numbers called physical constants (such as the speed of the light and the mass of the electron). We have by now measured these physical constants with extremely high precision, but we have failed to come up with any theory explaining why they have their particular values. One of the most surprising discoveries of modern cosmology is the realization that the initial conditions and physical constants of the universe had to be adjusted with exquisite precision if they are to allow the emergence of conscious observers. This realization is referred to as the 'anthropic principle'...Change the initial conditions and physical constants ever so slightly, and the universe would be empty and sterile; we would not be around to discuss it. The precision of this fine-tuning is nothing short of stunning. The initial rate of expansion of the universe, to take just one example, had to have been tweaked to a precision comparable to that of an archer trying to land an arrow in a 1-square-centimeter target located on the fringes of the universe, 15 billion light years away!"

One excellent book is the rather poorly titled book “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith” by Stephen M. Barr, a physics professor at the University of Delaware (which doesn't at all brush away religious thinking as an ancient relic, despite the title). In that book there is an interesting discussion of “anthropic coincidences” that are necessary for our existence. One example given is that of a parameter called v. On pages 126-127 the book makes these interesting comments:

"The long technical name of the parameter v is 'the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field.'....The value of v is a great puzzle to particle theorists; in fact, it is one of the central puzzles of physics. What is puzzling is that in reasonably simple theories v seems to want to come out to be, not 1, but a number like 10¹⁷, i.e, 100,000,000,000,000,000...As far as the possibility of life emerging in our universe is concerned, it would be a disaster for v to be 100,000,000,000,000,000. It would also be a disaster if it were 100,000,000,000,000, or if it were 100,000,000, or if it were 100,000, or if it were 100. Indeed, it would be a disaster if it were 10, or 5, or even 1.5. It would probably be a disaster if v were even slightly different from the value it happens to have in the real world."

So nature “hit the bullseye,” a very distant bullseye, it would seem. This is only one of many astonishing “coincidences” required for our existence. Barr lists seven other such cases, one of which is even more dramatic: the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant. As Barr puts it on page 130 of his book:

"In order for life to be possible, then, it appears that the cosmological constant, whether it is positive or negative, must be extremely close to zero – in fact, it must be zero to at least 120 decimal places. This is one of the most precise fine-tunings in all of physics."

It would be very hard to overestimate how thoroughly all major objects in our universe depend upon the fundamental constants being just right. It is not merely that the existence of extremely organized things such as mammals depends on a fine-tuning of fundamental constants. It is also that the existence of objects such as stars and planets depend on such a fine-tuning.  On pages 64-65 of his book "The Symbiotic Universe," astronomer George Greenstein (a professor emeritus at Amherst College) said this about the equality of the proton and electron charges (which have precisely the same absolute value): 

"Relatively small things like stones, people, and the like would fly apart if the two charges differed by as little as one part in 100 billion. Large structures like the Earth and the Sun require for their existence a yet more perfect balance of one part in a billion billion." 

In fact, experiments do indicate that the charge of the proton and the electron match to eighteen decimal places. Because of the dependency of stars on a very delicate fine-tuning of fundamental constants, you can state it this way: a random universe would be both lifeless and lightless. 

In an attempt to explain such things, physicist Lee Smolin long ago  advanced a groundless theory he calls  cosmological natural selection, a theory it seems few other scientists endorsed.  It's a theory of a cyclical universe in which the laws of the universe change in each cycle. At the center of the theory is black holes. 

 In his book Time Reborn, Smolin describes the theory as follows:

"The basic hypothesis of cosmological natural selection is that universes reproduce by the creation of new universes inside black holes. Our universe is thus a descendant of another universe, born in one of its black holes, and every black hole in our universe is the seed of a new universe. This is a scenario within which we can apply the principles of natural selection."

Smolin claims to have a theory of how the physics of the universe could evolve through natural selection. But how on earth can we get anything like natural selection out of the idea of new universes being created by the formation of black holes? Smolin gave the following ridiculously strained reasoning: (1) he claimed that the physics that favors a habitable universe are similar to the physics that favor the production of black holes; (2) he claimed that a new universe produced by a black hole might have slightly different physics from its parent universe; (3) he claimed that random variations in physics that would tend to produce universes that produce more black holes would cause such universes to produce more offspring (more universes); (4) he claimed that as a result of this “increased reproduction rate” of some types of universes, we therefore would gradually see the evolution of physical laws and constants that tend to favor the appearance of life and also the production of black holes.

The speculations described above hinge upon the linchpin claim that a new universe can be produced from the collapse of a huge star to form a black hole. Some analysts let Smolin get away with making this claim, but there is no reason why that should be done. The idea that a new universe can be produced from the collapse of a black hole is a complete fantasy, with no basis in fact. We have no observations to support such a theory. Nor is there any physics or mathematics to support such a theory. There is no way to write an equation in which you put a new universe on the right side of an equal sign. 

The idea of universes being produced from black holes is a very silly one. A typical black hole arises from the collapse of a star with only about 20 solar masses. A universe like ours has a mass-energy of at least 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar masses. Claiming a new universe can arise from a black hole is like claiming a planet can arise from a grain of sand. Black holes don't create universes; they are instead something that arise when the biggest stars die. 

Also contrary to observations is Smolin's groundless speculation about a black hole collapse causing a local fluctuation in fundamental constants of a universe, a speculation essential to his theory.  Our universe has plenty of black holes. But we see no local fluctuations in the fundamental constants of the universe anywhere. 

Smolin claimed that one advantage of his theory of cosmological natural selection is that it makes a falsifiable prediction. In a 2004 paper (page 38) he lists one such prediction:

“There is at least one example of a falsifiable theory satisfying these conditions, which is cosmological natural selection. Among the properties ...that make the theory falsifiable is that the upper mass limit of neutron stars is less than 1.6 solar masses. This and other predictions of CNS have yet to be falsified, but they could easily be by observations in progress.”

But by now this prediction has proven to be incorrect. In September 2019 a science news story reported on observations of one of the most massive neutron stars ever found. We are told, “The researchers, members of the NANOGrav Physics Frontiers Center, discovered that a rapidly rotating millisecond pulsar, called J0740+6620, is the most massive neutron star ever measured, packing 2.17 times the mass of our Sun into a sphere only 30 kilometers across.” A 2021 story lists the mass of this neutron star as 2.14 solar masses. 

Later there was a science news headline of "Black Widow Pulsar Sets Mass Record." A Sky and Telescope story  tells us this: 

"The pulsar PSR J0952-0607, which is some 20,000 light-years away in the constellation Sextans, already holds the title of second-fastest-known rotator, spinning around its axis 707 times per second. Now, it has also shattered the record for most massive neutron star known, weighing in at 2.35 solar masses."

 A CNN story confirms; it states, "The PSR J0952-0607 star is 2.35 times the mass of the sun." 

So the theory of cosmological natural selection has been falsified. Its creator Smolin told us exactly what observations would falsify it; and just such observations occurred. The theory of cosmological natural selection has attracted very little attention from physicists, and a search for the term on the Cornell physics paper server produces only five matches, none published later than 2013. Smolin (the creator of the theory) rather seems to have lost interest in it. A search for his papers on that same server shows none in the past 13 years that advocate for the theory. Smolin has moved on to some other theory he calls "biocosmology," one I discuss in my post here. 

But recently there appeared an article trying to revive the dead horse that is the theory of cosmological natural selection. It's an article by Jeff Shainline, one entitled "The universe is fine-tuned for technology, not just life."

Shainline confesses this:

"There are problems with CNS [cosmological natural selection] as Smolin originally formulated the idea, since it states that parameters should be optimized to maximize production of black holes made by stars. Empirically testing the claim suggests that this is probably not the case. The parameters of the universe don’t appear especially finely tuned to maximize black-hole production via stars."

But then Shainline tries to offer an "epicycle" to patch up the already falsified theory. He refers us to the 2008 paper "POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF THE QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY: An Introduction to the Meduso-Anthropic Principle" that you can read here. It's a paper that starts out like this: "If we assume that the constants of nature fluctuate near the singularity when a black hole forms (assuming, also, that physical black holes really do form singularities) then a process of evolution of universes becomes possible."  Such a statement should have been something like this:  "If we assume that the constants of nature fluctuate near the singularity when a black hole forms (assuming, also, that physical black holes really do form singularities) -- and if we also assume senselessly that a black hole destroying a star would create a new universe, and we also senselessly assume that such a new universe would have some fluctuations of the universe's fundamental  constants arising at just one spot in the old universe merely because some black hole had formed -- then a process of evolution

of universes becomes possible." 

The quotation below from the paper gives a passage that seems laughable:

"The conjecture which I believe modifies Professor Smolin’s conclusions is the following: 

SUCCESSFUL ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATIONS WILL EVENTUALLY CREATE BLACK HOLES. 

The synthesis of this with Smolin’s two conjectures is what I call the meduso-anthropic principle. Before exploring the implications, let us consider the plausibility of this conjecture. 

SUBCONJECTURE 1: SUCCESSFUL ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATIONS WILL EVENTUALLY WANT TO MAKE BLACK HOLES

 and 

SUBCONJECTURE 2: SUCCESSFUL INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATIONS WILL EVENTUALLY BE ABLE TO PRODUCE BLACK HOLES. 

It is fairly clear, at least, that the conjecture follows from the two subconjectures. (This paper is not on the mathematical level of rigor)."

No, it does not make sense at all to think that successful advanced industrial civilizations would want to make black holes. Black holes do not serve any purpose. And the creation of a black hole would be beyond the power of any civilization. It would require gathering up and concentrating twenty solar masses, which is the same amount of matter as in about 600,000 Earth-sized planets. That would be beyond the reach of any imaginable technology. 

The paper Shainline has referred us to is nonsense. But at least Shainline has got one thing right. His title is, "The universe is fine-tuned for technology, not just life." And that is correct. 

My diagram below illustrates the point. A barely habitable universe (allowing only the simplest of life, and only short-lived organisms) requires much less fine-tuning than a moderately habitable universe. And a luxury-permitting universe like the one we live in requires much more fine-tuning than a universe that is merely moderately habitable. 

Our universe is not just a universe that allows some type of life. It is a universe allowing the existence of high-tech technological civilizations, and creatures that have long lifetimes in stable environments. That type of universe (allowing the existence of elements such as gold, silver, iron,  copper and the "rare earth" elements used in computers) requires much more fine-tuning than a universe merely allowing the simplest life and organisms with short lifetimes. 

For an in-depth discussion of why luxury results such as we have in our universe defeat all multiverse explanations of our universe's habitability, read my post "Our Luxury Results Debunk the Multiverse As an Explanation." 

With a speculation such as Smolin's, you cannot simply start out by imagining a universe like ours with black holes, and then speculate that when such black holes are created, they produce other universes. To explain cosmic fine-tuning by appealing to black holes, you would have to first start out with some random universe that has no fine-tuning.  Then you might ask yourself: would such a random universe ever have black holes in the first place? The answer is: no, it would not. 

Just as living beings require a universe with incredibly high fine-tuning, black holes themselves require a universe with incredibly high fine-tuning. Study the infographic visual at the beginning of this post (discussing how black holes are formed), and also study Greenstein's quote about the fine-tuning needed for the existence of stars. Black holes only arise when stars much more massive than the sun finish burning up their nuclear fuel. But the existence of such stars requires very special physics fine-tuning fantastically unlikely to exist by chance.  As I once stated in another post, random universes are both lifeless and lightless. 

So what would happen if you started out with a random universe? There would be no stars brightly burning by thermonuclear fusion (which requires very precise fine-tuning), and no black holes arising when such stars entered the last stage of their lifetimes. So Smolin's phantasmagorical sequence of events could never get started. 

The reasoning above is based on assumptions of black holes forming as they form in our universe, from the collapse of super-massive stars. But there's another way to get black holes in random universes. If the  vacuum energy density can have random values in random universes, then you would have universes in which empty space would be far denser than steel, because of a cosmological constant gigantically many times larger than the convenient "almost nothing" cosmological constant we have. In such universes, black holes might be forming all the time, because of the collapse of super-dense concentrations of matter. The problem is that once you consider this way of forming black holes, then you destroy a crucial pillar of Smolin's theory of cosmological natural selection -- that universes producing black holes would be like universes compatible with life. 

Trying to recruit black holes to explain the universe's fine-tuning is like trying to recruit a rock to be your university's next physics professor. 

A theory of a physicist may be very much a "castle on a cloud"

The Forgotten Scientific Genius Who Pioneered the Argument From Cosmic Fine-Tuning

Discussions of arguments for the existence of God have traditionally mentioned three different arguments:

1. An argument called the cosmological argument, which is metaphysical.  
2. An argument called the argument from design, based on aspects of the universe that seem designed or organisms in nature that seem designed. 
3. A metaphysical argument called the ontological argument. 

There are different versions of the argument from design. Prior to 1950 most versions of the argument seemed to be based almost entirely on appearances of design in biology. The classic exposition of such an argument was William Paley's book Natural Theology. 

But after 1980 there began to arise a different version of the argument from design, one based on physics and cosmology. We can use the name "the argument from cosmic fine-tuning" to refer to this version of the argument from design. The argument was based on seemingly fine-tuned aspects of two different things: (1) the Big Bang event that apparently began the universe, and (2) the universe's laws and fundamental constants. 

What is a fundamental constant? It is a number that is the same everywhere in the universe, a number that crucially affects the behavior and appearance of matter and systems in the universe. The table below lists some of these fundamental constants. 

Speed of light	299,792,458 meters per second
Planck's constant	6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s
Gravitational constant	6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
Proton rest mass	1.6726231 × 10-27 kg
Electron rest mass	9.1093897 × 10-31 kg
Proton charge	1.60217733 × 10-19 coulomb
Electron charge	-1.60217733 × 10-19 coulomb

These numbers are called constants because they appear to be unvarying throughout the universe. Apparently everywhere in the universe all resting protons have a mass exactly equal to the proton mass stated above. Apparently everywhere in the universe all resting electrons have a mass exactly equal to the electron mass stated above. Apparently everywhere in the universe all protons have an electric charge exactly equal to the proton charge stated above. Apparently everywhere in the universe all electrons have an electric charge exactly equal to the electric charge stated above. The electric charge of all protons (a positive charge) is the very precise opposite of the electric charge of all electrons (a negative charge), something which physical science fails to explain.  

The argument from cosmic fine-tuning argues that some or most of these fundamental constants are fine-tuned, in the sense that they have values within a very narrow range compatible with the existence of intelligent life in the universe. The same argument appeals to fine-tuning in the laws of nature, and fine-tuning in natural quantities that could have been vastly different, such as the universe's initial expansion rate and the universe's initial entropy. An interesting question is: who first advanced something like this argument from cosmic fine-tuning?

To answer this question, we must go all the way back to the year 1834. In this year there was published the work "Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology" by William Whewell, which can be read here and here.

The Google Gemini infographic below summarizes Whewell's accomplishments in science, mathematics and education. 

Wikipedia gives a biographical sketch of William Whewell here. It is an article describing someone who seemed to be a figure of very high brilliance. We read that Whewell was a "polymath" who was Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. We read this:

"The breadth of Whewell's endeavours is his most remarkable feature. In a time of increasing specialisation, Whewell belonged in an earlier era when natural philosophers investigated widely. He published work in mechanics, physics, geology, astronomy, and economics, while also composing poetry, writing a Bridgewater Treatise, translating the works of Goethe, and writing sermons and theological tracts. In mathematics, Whewell introduced what is now called the Whewell equation, defining the shape of a curve without reference to an arbitrarily chosen coordinate system. He also organized thousands of volunteers internationally to study ocean tides, in what is now considered one of the first citizen science projects. He received the Royal Medal for this work in 1837.

One of Whewell's greatest gifts to science was his wordsmithing. He corresponded with many in his field and helped them come up with neologisms for their discoveries. Whewell coined, among other terms, scientist, physicist, linguistics, consilience, catastrophism, uniformitarianism, and astigmatism; he suggested to Michael Faraday the terms electrode, ion, dielectric, anode, and cathode."

We read in the Wikipedia article of the most astonishing output by Whewell, mainly in the fields of science and mathematics. 

On page 9  of his  work "Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology" William Whewell stated this:

"It will be our business to show that the laws which really prevail in nature are, by their form, that is, by the nature of the connexion which they establish among the quantities and properties which they regulate, remarkably adapted to the office which is assigned them ; and thus other evidence of selection, design, and goodness, in the power by which they were established." 

Whewell attempted to discover numbers in nature that seemed fine-tuned. He discussed examples such as the length of the year, the length of the day, and the mass of the earth. These are examples pertaining only to our planet, and cannot be called part of a cosmic fine-tuning argument. But some of Whewell's statements foreshadowed the argument from cosmic fine-tuning we see today. For example, on page 43 he said this:

"Now, it will be very obvious that if the intensity of gravity were to be much increased, or much diminished, if every object were to become twice as heavy or only half as heavy as it now is, all the forces, both of involuntary and voluntary motion which produce the present orderly and suitable results by being properly proportioned to the resistance which they experience, would be thrown off their balance ; they would produce motions too quick or too slow, wrong positions, jerks and stops, instead of steady, well conducted movements. The universe would be like a machine ill regulated ; every thing- would go wrong ; repeated collisions and a rapid disorganization must be the consequence."

He follows on page 50 with similar comments, discussing the disastrous effects  "if the force of gravity were much lessened." After discussing how much earthly life depends on the force of gravity having the right quantity, Whewell states this on page 51:

"The arbitrary quantity, therefore, of which we have been treating, the intensity of the force of gravity, appears to have been taken account of, in establishing the laws of those forces by which the processes of vegetable and animal life are carried on. And this leads us inevitably, we conceive, to the belief of a supreme contriving mind, by which these laws were thus devised and thus established."

On page 110 Whewell begins to discuss "the laws of electricity," but he failed to grasp the supreme importance of electromagnetism to the habitability of the universe. You can read about that importance in my posts here and here and here. 

On page 141 Whewell summarizes some of his arguments thus far:

"It has been shown in the preceding chapters that a great number of quantities and laws appear to have been selected in the construction of the universe ; and that by the adjustment to each other of the magnitudes and laws thus selected, the constitution of the world is what we find it, and is fitted for the support of vegetables and animals, in a manner in which it could not have been, if the properties and quantities of the elements had been different from what they are."

On page 144 Whewell states this:

"Now, in the list of the mathematical elements of the universe which has just been given, why have we such laws and such quantities as there occur, and no other? For the most part, the data there enumerated are independent of each other, and might be altered separately, so far as the mechanical conditions of the case are concerned....All natural philosophers will, probably, agree, that there must be, in this list, a great number of things entirely without any mutual dependence....There are, therefore, it appears, a number of things which, in the structure of the world, might have been otherwise, and which are what they are in consequence of choice or of chance. We have already seen, in many of the cases separately, how unlike chance every thing looks: — that substances, which might have existed any how, so far as they themselves are concerned, exist exactly in such a manner and measure as they should, to secure the welfare of other things : — that the laws are tempered and fitted together in the only way in which the world could have gone on, according to all that we can conceive of it. This must, therefore, be the work of choice ; and if so, it cannot be doubted, of a most wise and benevolent Chooser."

Whewell then proceeds to discuss at great length favorable features of our solar system that we would not expect chance to have produced, many of which are needed for humans to exist. On page 216 Whewell returns to a discussion of gravitation, pointing out that the law of gravitation has features (such as its inverse square rule)  it easily could not have had, features needed for our existence. He states this: "The answer to this is, that no reason, at all satisfactory, can be given why such a law must, of necessity, be what it is ; but that very strong reasons can be pointed out why, for the beauty and advantage of the system, the present one is better than others." 

Around pages 233-234 Whewell discusses Newton's laws of motion, discussing how life would be a long shot if they did behave as they do (for example, Earth would stop spinning if there did not exist Newton's first law of motion stating that objects maintain their state of motion unless something acts to change such a state). Whewell points out that there's no known why such laws have to behave as they do, and that for most of recorded history people thought matter did not behave as Newton's first law states. He states this:

"Such is the necessary consequence of the first law of motion ; but the law itself has no necessary existence, so far as we can see. It was discovered only after various perplexities and false conjectures of speculators on mechanics. We have learnt that it is so, but we have not learnt, nor can any one undertake to teach us, that it must have been so. For aught we can tell, it is one among a thousand equally possible laws, which might have regulated the motions of bodies."

A bit later Whewell concludes this:  "And as, along with this, it has appeared that we have no sort of right to attribute the establishment of this law to anything but selection, we have here a striking evidence of design, suited to lead us to a perception of that Divine mind, by which means so simple are made to answer purposes so extensive and so beneficial."

There seems to be validity in his comments about how critical laws of nature could just as easily have been vastly different. The three laws of nature most crucial to life are discussed in the table below.

PHENOMENON	OPERATING PRINCIPLE
Gravitation	Inverse square law (diminishes gradually as distance increases)
Electromagnetism	Inverse square law (diminishes gradually as distance increases)
Strong nuclear force	Glue-like operation (extremely strong at very short distances, disappearing at slightly greater distance)

Whewell's arguments about how providential are the features of our planet and solar system now seem prescient, given that astronomers have discovered thousands of planets revolving around other stars, but still have not discovered an extrasolar planet with either intelligent life or life of any type. Such arguments about our planet and solar system were only part of Whewell's arguments, which dealt considerably with things such as the strength of gravitation and the universal laws of nature, which are the same throughout the observable universe (gravity varying from planet to planet always depends on the same fundamental constant symbolized by G in Newton's famous equation expressing the law of gravitation). Whewell's arguments about how providential are the features of our planet and solar system have been restated and improved on by writers in recent decades. For example, the long paper here discusses multiple solar system habitability zones and multiple galactic habitability zones, giving a discussion of  quite a few "bullseyes that must be hit" that reinforces many of Whewell's claims. 

Whewell's 1834 book "Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology" did not get very many readers. A few decades later, a person less intelligent than the very brilliant Whewell (Charles Darwin) wrote a book with the racist-sounding title "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."  Atheists got busy constructing the untrue triumphal legend that a genius had explained the design in nature, and that the need to postulate a cosmic designer had been eliminated. The legend was untrue not merely because of the weakness of Darwinian explanations of biological phenomena, but also because of the complete failure of Darwinism to explain the evidence for fine-tuning in the laws and parameters of nature, the very evidence Whewell had discussed. Very strangely, the science professors of academia fervently embraced the mathematics-blind reasoning of the mathematics-ignorant Darwin rather than the opposing reasoning of the science genius and mathematics genius Whewell. 

That the academic world made Darwin its darling rather than Whewell was not merely an intellectual tragedy but a moral tragedy. Whewell's book was a book of both intellectual and moral brilliance. Whewell spent much of the book teaching an elevated ethics. Conversely, Darwin's "Origin of Species" was a book devoid of moral teachings, one that suggested an immoral code of conduct based on the idea of a ruthless "struggle for existence" in which "survival of the fittest" was the main rule. The disastrous moral effects of Darwinism are described in my post "The Poisonous Effects of the 'Struggle for Life' Ideology," which you can read here. 

But in the 20th century there occurred what we might call "Whewell's Revenge," as scientists made arguments like Whewell's, and with greater force. Part of this came in the writings of Harvard biological chemistry professor Lawrence J. Henderson, author of the 1913 book "The Fitness of the Environment," pointing out many cases of how nature seemed to be "pre-adapted" to allow the possibility of life's appearance In a later 1917 book Henderson stated this:

"The process of evolution consists in increase of diversity of systems and their activities, in the multiplication of physical occurrences, or, briefly, in the production of much from little. Other things being equal there is a maximum 'freedom' for such evolution on account of a certain unique arrangement of unique properties of matter. The chance that this unique ensemble of properties should occur by 'accident' is almost infinitely small (i. e., less than any probability which can be practically considered)."

On the next page Henderson stated this: 

"Therefore the properties of the elements must for the present be regarded as possessing a teleological character....This complex connection is almost infinitely improbable as a chance occurrence."

On page 205 Henderson flatly stated this: "For biological organization is teleological and non-mechanical."

In the 1974 paper "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology," Brandon Carter discusses several examples of cosmic fine-tuning. He stated on page 298 that if the strong nuclear force were "rather weaker hydrogen would be the only element." Referring to "the main sequence" that basically refers to the set of all regular stars, he stated this on page 297:

"If the gravitational coupling constant were weakened significantly..(or if the fine structure constant were increased 

by only a very small amount, the other parameters being fixed) then the main sequence would consist entirely of convective red stars. Conversely if the gravitational constant were rather stronger than it is (or if the fine structure constant were very slightly reduced) then the main sequence would consist entirely of radiative blue stars."

The fine-structure constant referred to is computed by using three of the fundamental constants listed above: the speed of light, the electron mass and Planck's constant. Blue stars are short-lived stars, and red stars (called red dwarfs) are thought to be "long shots" in regard to supporting planets on which intelligent life can evolve. 

In 1979 there was published in the journal Nature the important paper "The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World" by physicists B. J. Carr and M. J. Rees. which you can read here. This was a very influential paper that accelerated discussion of the topic of whether the universe was fine-tuned. The physicist authors noted that "several aspects of our Universe—some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life—depend rather delicately on apparent ‘coincidences’ among the physical constants." Many examples were given. For example, the authors stated this about the gravitational constant G: "Were G...slightly larger, all stars would be blue giants; if it were slightly smaller, all stars would be red dwarfs."  Neither of the star types mentioned are stars like the sun. Blue giant stars have short lifetimes of only a few million years, too short to allow the evolution of life.  While some think that life could exist on a planet revolving around the type of star called a red dwarf, it is usually maintained that planets revolving around such red dwarf stars would be much less likely to be habitable than planets revolving around yellow stars like our sun. 

Carr and Rees discussed many cases of fine-tuned fundamental constants. A book-length discussion of such cosmic fine-tuning occurred in the long 1984 work "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" by John Barrow and Frank Tipler. 

In later years, more and more scientists began to state that the universe is astonishingly fine-tuned to allow life to exist in it. Below are some quotes, all from scientists. 

• "The universe appears designed." -- Stephen Hawking, in a statement to physicist Thomas Hertog (link). 
• "The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.” -- Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow,  The Grand Design (page 161),
• "The simple FLRW-based ΛCDM lambda cold cark matter] model has been so successful in fitting data. However one of its ‘simple’ parameters is the Cosmological Constant Λ which, interpreted as the energy density of the quantum vacuum, would require fine-tuning of two unrelated terms to at least 60 decimal places to enable the Universe to exist in its present form. It is clear that simplicity is in the eye of the beholder." -- Four scientists, "Colloquium: The Cosmic Dipole Anomaly" (link). 
• "Of all the universes that could exist, ours is spectacularly well configured to bring forth life....The universe’s biofriendliness, it turns out, concerns the laws of physics themselves. There are numerous features in these laws that render the universe just right for living things...But the density of vacuum energy seems to be 10¹²⁰ times lower than physicists expect based on theory. If the vacuum energy density of the universe were just a tad larger, however, its repulsive effect would be stronger and acceleration would have kicked in much earlier. This would have meant that matter was so sparsely distributed that it couldn’t clump together to form stars and galaxies, once again precluding the formation of life. The laws of physics and cosmology have many more such life-engendering properties. It almost feels as if the universe is a fix – a big one." -- Physicist Thomas Hertog (link).
• "We conclude that a change of more than 0.5 % in the strength of the strong interaction or more than 4 % change in the strength of the Coulomb force would destroy either nearly all C [carbon] or all O [oxygen] in every star. This implies that irrespective of stellar evolution the contribution of each star to the abundance of C or O in the ISM would be negligible. Therefore, for the above cases the creation of carbon-based life in our universe would be strongly disfavoured." -- Oberhummer, Csot, and Schlattl, "Stellar Production Rates of Carbon and Its Abundance in the Universe."
• "From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of ¹²C [Carbon 12 isotope] to the 7.12 Mev level in ¹⁶O [Oxygen 16 isotope]. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so.  A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."  -- Astronomer Fred Hoyle, "The Universe -- Past and Present Reflections" (link). 
• "The cosmological constant must be tuned to 120 decimal places and there are also many mysterious ‘coincidences’ involving the physical constants that appear to be necessary for life, or any form of information processing, to exist....Fred Hoyle first pointed out, the beryllium would decay before interacting with another alpha particle were it not for the existence of a remarkably finely-tuned resonance in this interaction. Heinz Oberhummer has studied this resonance in detail and showed how the amount of oxygen and carbon produced in red giant stars varies with the strength and range of the nucleon interactions. His work indicates that these must be tuned to at least 0.5% if one is to produce both these elements to the extent required for life."  -- Physicists B.J. Carr and M.J. Rees, "Fine-Tuning in Living Systems." 
• "The Standard Model [of physics] is regarded as a highly 'unnatural' theory. Aside from having a large number of different particles and forces, many of which seem surplus to requirement, it is also very precariously balanced. If you change any of the 20+ numbers that have to be put into the theory even a little, you rapidly find yourself living in a universe without atoms. This spooky fine-tuning worries many physicists, leaving the universe looking as though it has been set up in just the right way for life to exist." -- Harry Cliff, particle physicist, in a Scientific American article.
• "If the parameters defining the physics of our universe departed from their present values, the observed rich structure and complexity would not be supported....Thirty-one such dimensionless parameters were identified that specify our universe. Fine-tuning refers to the observation that if any of these numbers took a slightly different value, the qualitative features of our universe would change dramatically. Our large, long-lived universe with a hierarchy of complexity from the sub-atomic to the galactic is the result of particular values of these parameters." -- Jeffrey M. Shainline, physicist (link). 
• "The overall result is that, because multiverse hypotheses do not predict the fine-tuning for this universe any better than a single universe hypothesis, the multiverse hypotheses fail as explanations for cosmic fine-tuning. Conversely, the fine-tuning data does not support the multiverse hypotheses." -- physicist V. Palonen, "Bayesian considerations on the multiverse explanation of cosmic fine-tuning."
• "A mere 1 percent offset between the charge of the electron and that of the proton would lead to a catastrophic repulsion....My entire body would dissolve in a massive explosion...The very Earth itself, the planet as a whole, would crack open and fly apart in an annihilating explosion...This is what would happen were the electron's charge to exceed the proton's by 1 percent. The opposite case, in which the proton's charge exceeded the electron's, would lead to the identical situation...How precise must the balance be?...Relatively small things like atoms, people and the like would fly apart if the charges differed by as little as one part in 100 billion. Larger structures like the Earth and the Sun require for their existence a yet more perfect balance of one part in a billion billion." -- Astronomy professor emeritus George Greenstein, "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos," pages 63-64. 
• "What is particularly striking is how sensitive the possibility of life in our universe is to a small change in these constants. For example, if the constant that controls the way the electromagnetic field behaves in a vacuum is changed by four percent, then fusion in stars could not produce carbon....Change the cosmological constant in the 123rd decimal place and suddenly it's impossible to have a habitable galaxy." --  Marcus Du Sautoy, Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, "The Great Unknown," page 221. 
• "The evolution of the cosmos is determined by initial conditions (such as the initial rate of expansion and the initial mass of matter), as well as by fifteen or so numbers called physical constants (such as the speed of the light and the mass of the electron). We have by now measured these physical constants with extremely high precision, but we have failed to come up with any theory explaining why they have their particular values. One of the most surprising discoveries of modern cosmology is the realization that the initial conditions and physical constants of the universe had to be adjusted with exquisite precision if they are to allow the emergence of conscious observers. This realization is referred to as the 'anthropic principle'...Change the initial conditions and physical constants ever so slightly, and the universe would be empty and sterile; we would not be around to discuss it. The precision of this fine-tuning is nothing short of stunning. The initial rate of expansion of the universe, to take just one example, had to have been tweaked to a precision comparable to that of an archer trying to land an arrow in a 1-square-centimeter target located on the fringes of the universe, 15 billion light years away!" -- Trinh Xuan Thuan, Professor of Astronomy, University of Virginia, “Chaos and Harmony”  p. 235.
• "If we are indeed simply requiring suitable conditions for the evolution of intelligent life just here, then the figure of ~ [1 in 10 to the 10 to the 124th power] that  we appear to find for the improbability of the universe conditions that we actually seem to find ourselves in is ridiculously smaller than the much more modest figure needed just for ourselves."  -- Cosmologist Roger Penrose,  "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe," page 313 (link).
• "The values of some fundamental physical constants are considered to be finely tuned and balanced to give our observable world. Examples include finely tuned balance between quark masses needed to produce protons and neutrons ...and production of heavy nuclei in stars, which depends on the finely tuned balance between the fine structure constant ...and the ratio of the proton mass ..and electron mass...These and other examples suggest a narrow 'habitable zone' in parameter space...where essential biochemical elements can form... For this reason, fundamental constants are referred to as 'biofriendly' or 'biophilic' ....We need to tune the same fundamental constants setting α and β (ℏ, e, c, me, mp) that, importantly, involves tuning, which is additional and different to tuning involved in fixing α and β....We can conjecture that multiple independent tunings were involved. This includes tuning fundamental constants to produce heavy nuclei and additional tunings needed for other observed sustainable structures to emerge." -- Kostya Trachenko, "Constraints on fundamental physical constants from bio-friendly viscosity and diffusion" (link).

During the past 70 years scientists have learned more and more about how enormously fine-tuned the universe is. During the same period, scientists have learned more and more about how enormously organized and fine-tuned biological organisms are, how enormously rich creatures such as humans are in gigantically complex components that are enormously interdependent on each other to be functional. The more we learn about such things, the less credible Darwinist explanations are.  The more we learn about things such as an abundance of many types of accidentally unachievable fine-tuned molecular machines in our bodies, the less credible gradualist explanations are. Gradualist explanations of biological wonders fail enormously, for reasons discussed here. 

Consequently a very powerful case can now be made that the 19th century scientific figure who did a better job of pointing us in the right direction about the type of universe we live in was not Darwin but Whewell.  And as I will clarify in a later post, of the often-mentioned pair of Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, it is becoming increasingly more clear that the one who characterized humans more accurately was Wallace, not Darwin. 

CMB Anomalies: An Enduring "Wrong Way" Sign to Cosmologists

 It is sometimes said that the cosmic microwave background or CMB dates from the beginning of the universe. But in reality it dates from a time about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, a time called the Epoch of Recombination. 

What are called CMB anomalies are unexpected features in the cosmic background radiation that pervades all of space. The cosmic background radiation is also called the cosmic microwave background or CMB. Using their existing theories about the universe and its beginning, cosmologists (the scientists who study the universe as  whole) expect the cosmic background radiation to have particular qualities.  CMB anomalies are features in the cosmic background radiation that defy such expectations, hinting that cosmologists have got things wrong in some major way. 

My last major post on the topic of CMB anomalies was a 2017 post entitled "Shocking CMB Anomalies Contradict Guth's 'Empirical Success' Claims."  Below is a quote from that post:

"The first satellite to observe in detail the cosmic background radiation was the WMAP satellite launched in 2001. This satellite detected some very strange anomalies in the cosmic background radiation, anomalies that came as a surprise to scientists. One was an anomaly called the cosmic cold spot. Another was an anomaly that is technically known as the hemispherical variance asymmetry. Then there is an anomaly called the quadrupole-octopole alignment. There are nine other anomalies in the cosmic background radiation that are summarized in a table in this scientific paper. The table is below:

The p-values here give us a rough idea of the probability of finding such anomalies if standard ideas of cosmology (including cosmic inflation and dark matter) are correct.....Years after the WMAP satellite was launched, scientists launched another satellite called the Planck satellite. It was predicted that the troubling anomalies in the cosmic background radiation would go away after the more powerful Planck satellite did its work. But that did not happen. The Planck team reported the same anomalies. The table above is from a paper entitled, 'CMB Anomalies After Planck.' ”

A 2010 paper states the following about these anomalies in the cosmic background radiation:

"While not all of these alignments are statistically independent, their combined statistical significance is certainly greater than their individual significances. For example, given their mutual alignments, the conditional probability of the four normals lying so close to the ecliptic, is less than 2%; the combined probability of the four normals being both so aligned with each other and so close to the ecliptic is less than 0.4% × 2% = 0.008%. These are therefore clearly surprising, highly statistically significant anomalies — unexpected in the standard inflationary theory and the accepted cosmological model.

This is a probability of less than 1 in 10,000 under the assumptions of the theory of primordial cosmic inflation and the accepted cosmological model.

The quotes above are mainly from my 2017 post. What has happened in recent years in regard to these CMB anomalies? They seem to have mostly persisted. Recently a cosmologist named Subir Sarkar wrote an article discussing a paper he co-authored about one of these CMB anomalies, called the cosmic dipole anomaly. He wrote this, using CDM to refer to "cold dark matter":

"The cosmic dipole anomaly has thus established itself as a major challenge to the standard cosmological model, even if the astronomical community has chosen to largely ignore it. This may be because there is no easy way to patch up this problem. It requires abandoning not just the Lambda-CDM model but the FLRW description itself, and going back to square one."

Such talk about troubling anomalies and the possible overthrow of a prevailing paradigm reminds me of the theory of scientific revolutions presented by Thomas Kuhn in his much-referenced work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. According to Kuhn, there would arise among some large group of scientists a set of assumptions and belief traditions that Kuhn called a paradigm. But the paradigm might  be challenged by observations that conflicted with it, observations that Kuhn called anomalies. For a long time, conformist and habit-bound  scientists loyal to some prevailing paradigm would just ignore such anomalies, or try to "sweep them under the rug." But eventually the anomalies might become so abundant and so hard-to-ignore that there might occur a scientific revolution in which the old paradigm would be overthrown. The diagram below summarizes such ideas:

The corresponding scientific paper co-authored by Sarkar is a recent work that will be hard for the layman to read. There is one passage that is very noteworthy, the passage below:

"The simple FLRW-based ΛCDM lambda cold cark matter] model has been so successful in fitting data. However one of its ‘simple’ parameters is the Cosmological Constant Λ which, interpreted as the energy density of the quantum vacuum, would require fine-tuning of two unrelated terms to at least 60 decimal places to enable the Universe to exist in its present form. It is clear that simplicity is in the eye of the beholder." 

What does this reference to " fine-tuning of two unrelated terms to at least 60 decimal places" refer to? It refers to a degree of coincidental luck that you would have if you guessed the ten-digit phone numbers of six strangers visiting from very far away, and correctly guessed perfectly all of their phone numbers. My widely-read post here discusses the topic in greater detail. 

The fine-tuning referred to is only one of many examples of very precise fine-tuning revealed by physics and cosmology. Another one is a very precise fine-tuning involving the initial expansion rate of the universe. Cosmologists said the initial expansion rate of the universe must have been fine-tuned to about 50 decimal places, or we would not end up with a universe like the universe we have. They were so horrified by this that they wasted 45 years on a "primordial cosmic inflation" speculation misadventure trying to explain away the fine-tuning, a speculation that has failed to be confirmed, and has flunked observational tests such as the search for primordial b-modes. It is this very "primordial cosmic inflation" speculation regime that is discredited by the CMB anomalies mentioned above, which should not exist if such "primordial cosmic inflation" speculations are correct, as I explain in my 2017 post. 

Then there is the exact equality of the absolute value of the charge on every proton and the absolute value of the charge on every electron, which experiments show match to 20 decimal places. Below is a relevant quote:

"A mere 1 percent offset between the charge of the electron and that of the proton would lead to a catastrophic repulsion....My entire body would dissolve in a massive explosion...The very Earth itself, the planet as a whole, would crack open and fly apart in an annihilating explosion...This is what would happen were the electron's charge to exceed the proton's by 1 percent. The opposite case, in which the proton's charge exceeded the electron's, would lead to the identical situation...How precise must the balance be?...Relatively small things like atoms, people and the like would fly apart if the charges differed by as little as one part in 100 billion. Larger structures like the Earth and the Sun require for their existence a yet more perfect balance of one part in a billion billion." -- Astronomy professor emeritus George Greenstein, "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos," pages 63-64. 

You might think that physicists and cosmologists would be smart enough to put two and two together here. But mostly they act like the "Wheel of Fortune" contestant in the visual below.