LIFE AND THE ABANDONMENT OF THE NATURALISTIC HYPOTHESIS

Is the evolution of life inevitable when the right circumstances collaborate? Astronomer Hugh Ross has warned us to not expect it, anywhere in the universe:

·       The probability of life originating naturalistically on a habitable planet is mathematically indistinguishable from zero. Since zero times any other factor or set of factors equals zero, then, from a naturalistic perspective, the number of civilizations besides our own that exist in the universe is zero. (Salvo Magazine, Winter 2016, 35)

Why might Ross have calculated that the chances of life occurring naturalistically as zero? Here are several considerations:

Biologist Michael Denton points out the immensity of the machinery involved in even the simplest forms of life:

·       “If a cell were magnified a thousand million times…in every direction we looked, we would see all sorts of robot-like machines…the task of designing even one such molecular machine would be completely beyond our capacity.”

Richard Kleiss observes that:

·       “The mathematical probability that the precisely designed molecules needed for the simplest bacteria could form by chance arrangements of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10 followed by 450 zeroes.”

This is just a matter of the building blocks and not even the cellular machinery. He adds that:

·       “The coded instructions contained in the DNA of a human cell would fill 4,000 encyclopedia-sized books.”       

Interestingly, there is no evidence whatsoever that a single protein or segment of DNA has ever been found to occur naturally. Kleiss maintains that these products need to be produced within a living cell, but the cell first needs these building blocks:

·       “To make DNA, you have to have DNA in the first place…This leads to the conclusion that cells could never have evolved, they simply had to have been created with the DNA code already in them!”

Consequently, the naturalistic hypothesis might have to be abandoned.

God and the Cosmos

Does such a universe as ours require a master Creator? Astronomer Hugh Ross explains that there have been many nay-sayers:

• In the days before the telescopes, when an observer could count a few thousand stars in the night sky, many considered the universe too small and unimpressive to be the work of an almighty, all-knowing Creator.

However, now with our monster telescopes and the knowledge of fifty billion trillion stars alone, the atheists now complain that a Creator God would never have been so wasteful. Victor Stegner writes,

• If God created the universe as a special place for humanity, he seems to have wasted an awfully large amount of space. (God: The Failed Hypothesis)

Stephen Hawking agrees about the wastefulness:

• Our solar system certainly is a prerequisite for our existence…But there does not seem to be any need for all these other galaxies. (A Brief History of Time)

Consequently, if the universe is small, there can’t be a God. If it’s huge, there can’t be a God. Heads I win; tails you loose! In opposition to the “wastefulness” hypothesis, Ross argues that every last spoonful of matter is vital to the life-supporting nature of our universe:

• The mass of the universe must be fine-tuned to produce the just-right abundance and diversity of elements essential for life…the mass density must be precisely fixed to allow for the just-right rates of expansion throughout cosmic history so that the just-right kinds of stars and planets will form at the just-right times and in the just-right locations for life. The combination of these astronomical improbabilities clearly defies any explanation other than transcendent intentionality. (Salvo Magazine, Issue 20, 48)

Ross’ conclusions depend upon the acceptance of Big-Bang cosmology, accepted by perhaps 98% of astronomers. If these conclusions are so certain, then there shouldn’t be atheists but just a God. They inescapably reflect “transcendent intentionality”- intelligent design. These conclusions require that a Super-intelligence both created and now maintains this glorious universe.

If this is the case, then nothing has changed for three thousand years since the Psalmist proclaimed:

• The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. (Psalm 19:1)

The heavens still make the same declaration, but now with statistics and formulae. Ross understandably concludes:

• This degree of cosmic fine-tuning also declares the worth of human beings. It tells us that the Creator of the universe considered humans to be of such value that he willingly and meticulously crafted a universe of fifty billion trillion stars, and a hundred times more mass besides, just to produce an appropriate planet to be their home.

Do you feel loved? I do!