A special universe? Fred Hoyle, the triple alpha process and the existence of God

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/polkinghorne/lecture4.html ^ | A special universe?

[dennisw]

A special universe?

A second question of this deeper kind arises from thinking about the character of the laws of nature themselves. Science just takes them for granted, as the basis from which it derives its understanding of the events that are happening. I do not think, however, that we should do so, for we should press on to ask the question, Why is the universe so special? Why are the laws of nature so ‘finely-tuned’ to make life possible? Behind this question lies a very surprising realization that scientists only reached in the last forty years or so. It is that, though life in our universe only developed billions of years after the big bang, the world was pregnant with that possibility from the very start. By that I mean, that the laws of nature had to take from the start exactly the form they do for you and me to have been able to be here on Earth today. Otherwise things would have gone wrong that would have made the history of the universe boring and sterile. I am sure you know that this unexpected collection of scientific insights has been given the name of the Anthropic Principle. (A better name would be ‘the Carbon Principle’, because no-one is claiming that precisely homo sapiens, five fingers and all, had to emerge, but only carbon-based beings of our kind of complexity and fruitfulness.)

 

To get to the point of the Anthropic Principle, just think about the stars. A fruitful universe has to have exactly the right sort of stars, for the stars have two absolutely indispensable roles in making life possible. One is simply fuelling its development. The three and a half billion year history of life on Earth has only been possible because all that time the Sun has been shining steadily, supplying the energy needed. We understand what enables stars to burn steadily and for long periods like that, and if the forces of nature had been only slightly different from what they are, it would have been impossible. A universe exactly the same as ours except that in it gravity was three times stronger, would have been boring and sterile in its history because its stars would have burnt themselves out in a few million years, long before any life could get going on an encircling planet.

 

The second role the stars have to perform is to produce the raw materials of life in their nuclear furnaces. The chemistry of life is the chemistry of carbon and there is only one place in the whole universe where carbon can be made, namely inside stars. We are all made of stardust. Once again, this delicately balanced chain of reactions by which the chemicals of our bodies have been made, is only possible because the laws of nuclear physics are just the way they are and no other. When Fred Hoyle saw that carbon could be made in stellar interiors only because there was an enhancement (a resonance) at exactly the right energy to make it possible, he is said to have remarked that the universe was a ‘put-up’ job. Hoyle could not just believe this was a happy accident, with nothing more to be said about it.

So, is all this just our luck, or is there a reason why things are so finely-tuned to the possibility of life? I would find it extremely intellectually lazy just to say that’s the way it is and that’s that. My belief in creation makes all this intelligible for me. Our fruitful universe is the way it is because it is not just ‘any old world’, but it is a creation that has been endowed by its Creator with just those laws of nature that have enabled it to have so fertile a history.

One further issue needs to be addressed. Did not Charles Darwin destroy the idea of creation by showing that life developed simply through evolution? Darwin certainly told us something very interesting about the How of life’s development on Earth. We should take his insights very seriously. In fact, from the very publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, some Christians began to do so. The story, so often repeated in a kind of modern myth, that the ideas of evolution were opposed by solid ranks of obscurantist clergymen is historically ignorant. It is simply untrue. At the time there was a good deal of argument for and against Darwin’s ideas, both among scientists and among religious people. Early on, an Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley, stated powerfully the right way to think theologically about evolution. He said that God could no doubt have brought into being a ready-made world, but in fact the Creator had done something cleverer than that in making ‘a creation that could make itself’. The world is not God’s puppet theatre in which the Creator pulls every string. It is instead the theatre of Love in which creatures are allowed to be themselves and to make themselves. That is the way in which Christians can understand the scientific insight of an evolving world. It is fully compatible with the belief that that world is God’s creation.

 

[dennisw]

Was brought up on Rush Limbaugh show yesterday. An answer to the god_less.

[AngloSaxon]

"The world is not God’s puppet theatre in which the Creator pulls every string."

'God does not play dice with the universe;

He plays an ineffable game of His own devising,which might be compared,from the perspective of any of the other players,to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room,with blank cards,for infinate stakes,with a dealer who wont tell you the rules and who smiles all the time.'

[dennisw]

Great quotes. I only know the second one. Attributed to Alfred Einstein.

[dennisw]

"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. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections", Annual Reviews of Astonomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982), 16.

[AngloSaxon]

The second is Terry Pratchett.

[ThirstyMan]

Early on, an Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley, stated powerfully the right way to think theologically about evolution.

The only proper way to think "theologically" about the origins of the species is to know that "God did it!" That's theologically sound doctrine there.

But I only know that "God did it," by personal revelation. We must not overlook that fact. I am quite comfortable to let the wonderful world of science reveal their "best guess" manner in which this was accomplished.

As for the "Anthropic" principle on the suitability of the Universe for life and evolution as the best explanation for the origin of the species, they seem like rather distant topics from each other to me.

[KeyWest]

Both quotes are fine from a scientist's point of view.

Einstein's quote also stands up from a spiritual point of view. The second does not since there is a manual.

As a scientist, I see God giving us a puzzle with no picture of what we are working on, and so far, we have just been working on the edges.

A good book is Darwin's God, where the author shows that the more we know, the more complex the universe, and the greater God is.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

God is revealed by nature, e.g.,

Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

[Ichneumon]

Supernova remnants: we are made from the elements expelled during these stellar explosions (click to enlarge).

I'm sorry, I just can't take too seriously the cosmological musings of someone who is so ignorant of astronomy that they think Eta Carinae is a "supernova". It isn't -- and we should be damned glad that it isn't.

Eta Carinae is an *extremely* unstable supermassive star 8,000 light years from Earth. 150 years ago it flared up so strongly that for a time it became one of the brightest stars in the Earthly skies, producing the gigantic "barbell" shaped nebula seen in the photo above.

The cloud is so gigantic (4 *trillion* miles across) that one *pixel* in that image is larger than the size of our entire solar system. The cloud is expanding at 1.5 million miles per hour. The star itself is that white glow in the middle.

Eta Carinae is one of the most massive stars in our galaxy, and when it eventually lets loose and explodes as a supernova it is expected to temporarily outshine the rest of our galaxy combined, and may release enough gamma-ray energy to cause serious (or fatal) problems here on Earth.

[ThirstyMan]

18 For the wrath of God is revealed...

Yes, and to further clarify, in light of your posting from Scripture, God is known by revelation. He reveals himself to all, those who seek and those who resist.
But don't you agree, this is a distinctly different world from science?
The Scriptures reveal a divine interpretation of what is seen in science. "God did it!"

[SE Mom]

bump for later read

[P.O.E.]

Another quote (he said half-joking, half serious):

"I wonder, wonder, who-ba-doo-hoo....Who wrote the book of Love?"

[betty boop]

Charles Kingsley, stated powerfully the right way to think theologically about evolution. He said that God could no doubt have brought into being a ready-made world, but in fact the Creator had done something cleverer than that in making ‘a creation that could make itself’. The world is not God’s puppet theatre in which the Creator pulls every string. It is instead the theatre of Love in which creatures are allowed to be themselves and to make themselves. That is the way in which Christians can understand the scientific insight of an evolving world. It is fully compatible with the belief that that world is God’s creation.

What a beautiful statement, dennisw! Thank you so much for this post.

[xzins]

There are gems in there (with some personal modifications that we won't get into...:>)

[xzins]

There are gems in there (with some personal modifications that we won't get into...:>)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping to that engaging post!

[D-fendr]

Another Einstein quote:

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

18 For the wrath of God is revealed...

Yes, and to further clarify, in light of your posting from Scripture, God is known by revelation. He reveals himself to all, those who seek and those who resist.
But don't you agree, this is a distinctly different world from science?
The Scriptures reveal a divine interpretation of what is seen in science. "God did it!"

---

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

I think Paul is saying here that, even WITHOUT revelation, the existence of a Creator is made evident by the attributes of the creation. Thus, when individuals adopt a "scientific method" that rules out the existence of a creator in its premises, they are without excuse, and will end up with, for example, the "just so" stories that populate evolutionary reasoning, and transform it into a protean, unfalsifiable mythology instead of science.

[snarks_when_bored]

I missed this thread when it was originally posted. Had I seen it, I would've linked to this video page, featuring videos in which Polkinghorne and Steven Weinberg square off against each other (and in which Weinberg pretty much reduces Polkinghorne's position to mush).

I would've also mentioned Weinberg's essay, "A Designer Universe", first published, I believe, in the New York Times Book Review, but also available here. This essay contains one of Weinberg's more memorable comments about religion:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

But, as I said, I missed this thread, so ...