The Anthropic Principle
By Grant R. Jeffery
I typed this because I like his article on Evolution. Forgive my typos if you find any. Lee
In the last few decades scientists have increased their understanding of the known universe through massive additions to our scientific knowledge in a variety of fields including astrophysics, quantum physics, and microbiological genetic research. The sumtotal of our scientific knowledge is now doubling every twenty four mouths – a staggering increase in information unprecedented in human history. We are surely witnessing the fulfillment of the curious prediction of the prophet Daniel made twenty- five centuries ago, ‘Seal the book, even to and for, and knowledge shall be increased†(Daniel 12:4). Among the new discoveries made by science recently, one of the most fascinating is called the anthropic principle. This anthropic principle simply concludes that a staggering number of scientific variables such as the composition of our atmosphere, the distance from the sum, the chemical composition of soil are precisely that is necessary for life to exist and prosper. Recent discoveries in the field of astronomy, for example, prove that human life could not survive if our solar system was even slightly different. An astronomer, Dr. Jastrow, declared that even a small increase in the nuclear forces that hold together all atoms would result in a universe in which stars are made of hydrogen. In a universe with slightly increased nuclear forces the helium stars would have burned up much more quickly than our hydrogen stars. If the nuclear forces were slightly less, the carbon atoms would not have formed. Without carbon atoms, life could not exist. The same anthropic principle can be seen in the other scientific variables such as the force or gravity which would make life impossible if the force were either much greater or much less. The communication between every once of the trillion cells in our body is based on the earth’s magnetic field. Therefore, a reduction of the strength of this magnetic field beyond a certain level would make biological life impossible. Life could not exist if our earth was either too close or too far from the sum which provides the necessities of life through a complete spectrum of radiation including visible light. The twenty- fore hour rotation of our planet facilitates life. If the planet did not rotate one half of the globe would be desolate under the constant glare of the sun and the other half would freeze in perpetual darkness. In sum total, the scientists have concluded that there are dozens of these scientific factors that are precisely correct to facilitate life on this planet. Pr4ofessor Jastrow suggests that the universe was constructed within very narrow limits, in such a way that man could dwell in it. In other words, this evidence in support of the anthropic principle strongly argues that our universe and earth were designed for the life of man by an intelligent and supernaturally powerful Creator. The evidence of brilliant design demands that an i9ntelligent Designer must have created that design, namely God. The recent discoveries of science provide overwhelming evidence that the simplistic view of the atheists that our universe and life could have arisen by random chance over billions of years is scientifically false. In summary these scientific discoveries demolish the evolutionary theory of the formation of life by random chance. These discoveries provide incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent Creator purposely designed and created both the universe and life itself. Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe suggested that the anthropic principle strongly supported the theory of special creation, as opposed to evolution. When He was asked if his scientific research proved that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was fatally flawed, he agreed. When asked how he would evaluate the scientific arguments of the Creationists, who suggest that only God could have created the universe and life itself, Dr. Wickramasinghe responded, ‘You mean the arguments that are justifications of their position? I think they have a very good case by and large. In the light of the overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is not supported by the fossil record and that evolution is mathematically impossible the average reader must wonder why evolution has survived for so long as a universally taught theory. I believe the answer lies in the strong desire by many scientists and educators to escape the consequences or a belief in God and the truth that each of us has an appointment to meet God as our judge following our death. Supporters of evolution understand very clearly that, if evolution is false, them the only possible logical explanation for this universe and the complexity of life is that there is a God who has created us. This alternative conclusion is so unthinkable to many scientists that they will desperately hold onto the faltering theory of evolution to their dying day despite the absence of evidence to support it. Evolutionary scientist Arthur Keith has admitted, ‘ Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable. In reality, these scientists demonstrate a blind faith in their scientific religion of evolution that will ignore all evidence that contradicts their theory. Their Realization of the scientific weakness of evolution is the real reason evolutionists are so determined to deep the theory of special creation out off the schools and universities. Evolution can only survive if no one is allowed to challenge it with the facts. Some evolutionist are honest enough to admit that evolution is a matter of faith as opposed to pure science. Professor, G. A. Rerkut of the University of Southampton (London) expressed his conclusion regarding that attitudes of scientists on biogenesis (evolution): “ It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally, the evidence for what did happen is not available. Dr. Henry Morris was a firm believer in evolution until he began to examine the evidence critically for himself. Hew soon realized that the whole theory was not supported by scientific evidence at all but that evolution has become a new religion for those who wished to escape the consequences of the truth of the Bible about a personal God, salvation, and judgment. Many… believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a fact and therefore, it must be accepted… In recent years, a great many people… having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced antievolutionists. In the last decade numerous evolutionists have admitted that the actual scientific evidence in the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Some scientists have acknowledged that they have not found any evidence at all in the fossil record of animals with partially developed organs such as legs, brains or eyes. Yet their theory of evolution, if true, demands that the fossil record must contain millions of such examples. A strong supporter of the theory of evolution, T. L. Moor, wrote, ‘ The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone. Another evolutionist, Dr. Miles Eldredge, has written, ‘We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive
Change), all the while really knowing that it does not.†Another evolutionist scientist, Dr. Solly Zuckerman admitted the truth when she wrote, (the record or reckless speculation of human origins) is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this filed at all. Dr. Paul Davies wrote about his personal beliefs and his estimate of the views of other physicists in a fascinating article entitled “ The Christian Perspective of a Scientist†in the academic magazine New Scientist. Dr. Davies wrote, “ The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is something behind it all is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists†( Paul Davies, New Scientist, June 1983, p. 638). Another evolutionist, D.M. S. Watson, admitted: Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be prove by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative- special creation- is clearly incredible.â€Â
By Grant R. Jeffery
I typed this because I like his article on Evolution. Forgive my typos if you find any. Lee
In the last few decades scientists have increased their understanding of the known universe through massive additions to our scientific knowledge in a variety of fields including astrophysics, quantum physics, and microbiological genetic research. The sumtotal of our scientific knowledge is now doubling every twenty four mouths – a staggering increase in information unprecedented in human history. We are surely witnessing the fulfillment of the curious prediction of the prophet Daniel made twenty- five centuries ago, ‘Seal the book, even to and for, and knowledge shall be increased†(Daniel 12:4). Among the new discoveries made by science recently, one of the most fascinating is called the anthropic principle. This anthropic principle simply concludes that a staggering number of scientific variables such as the composition of our atmosphere, the distance from the sum, the chemical composition of soil are precisely that is necessary for life to exist and prosper. Recent discoveries in the field of astronomy, for example, prove that human life could not survive if our solar system was even slightly different. An astronomer, Dr. Jastrow, declared that even a small increase in the nuclear forces that hold together all atoms would result in a universe in which stars are made of hydrogen. In a universe with slightly increased nuclear forces the helium stars would have burned up much more quickly than our hydrogen stars. If the nuclear forces were slightly less, the carbon atoms would not have formed. Without carbon atoms, life could not exist. The same anthropic principle can be seen in the other scientific variables such as the force or gravity which would make life impossible if the force were either much greater or much less. The communication between every once of the trillion cells in our body is based on the earth’s magnetic field. Therefore, a reduction of the strength of this magnetic field beyond a certain level would make biological life impossible. Life could not exist if our earth was either too close or too far from the sum which provides the necessities of life through a complete spectrum of radiation including visible light. The twenty- fore hour rotation of our planet facilitates life. If the planet did not rotate one half of the globe would be desolate under the constant glare of the sun and the other half would freeze in perpetual darkness. In sum total, the scientists have concluded that there are dozens of these scientific factors that are precisely correct to facilitate life on this planet. Pr4ofessor Jastrow suggests that the universe was constructed within very narrow limits, in such a way that man could dwell in it. In other words, this evidence in support of the anthropic principle strongly argues that our universe and earth were designed for the life of man by an intelligent and supernaturally powerful Creator. The evidence of brilliant design demands that an i9ntelligent Designer must have created that design, namely God. The recent discoveries of science provide overwhelming evidence that the simplistic view of the atheists that our universe and life could have arisen by random chance over billions of years is scientifically false. In summary these scientific discoveries demolish the evolutionary theory of the formation of life by random chance. These discoveries provide incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent Creator purposely designed and created both the universe and life itself. Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe suggested that the anthropic principle strongly supported the theory of special creation, as opposed to evolution. When He was asked if his scientific research proved that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was fatally flawed, he agreed. When asked how he would evaluate the scientific arguments of the Creationists, who suggest that only God could have created the universe and life itself, Dr. Wickramasinghe responded, ‘You mean the arguments that are justifications of their position? I think they have a very good case by and large. In the light of the overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is not supported by the fossil record and that evolution is mathematically impossible the average reader must wonder why evolution has survived for so long as a universally taught theory. I believe the answer lies in the strong desire by many scientists and educators to escape the consequences or a belief in God and the truth that each of us has an appointment to meet God as our judge following our death. Supporters of evolution understand very clearly that, if evolution is false, them the only possible logical explanation for this universe and the complexity of life is that there is a God who has created us. This alternative conclusion is so unthinkable to many scientists that they will desperately hold onto the faltering theory of evolution to their dying day despite the absence of evidence to support it. Evolutionary scientist Arthur Keith has admitted, ‘ Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable. In reality, these scientists demonstrate a blind faith in their scientific religion of evolution that will ignore all evidence that contradicts their theory. Their Realization of the scientific weakness of evolution is the real reason evolutionists are so determined to deep the theory of special creation out off the schools and universities. Evolution can only survive if no one is allowed to challenge it with the facts. Some evolutionist are honest enough to admit that evolution is a matter of faith as opposed to pure science. Professor, G. A. Rerkut of the University of Southampton (London) expressed his conclusion regarding that attitudes of scientists on biogenesis (evolution): “ It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally, the evidence for what did happen is not available. Dr. Henry Morris was a firm believer in evolution until he began to examine the evidence critically for himself. Hew soon realized that the whole theory was not supported by scientific evidence at all but that evolution has become a new religion for those who wished to escape the consequences of the truth of the Bible about a personal God, salvation, and judgment. Many… believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a fact and therefore, it must be accepted… In recent years, a great many people… having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced antievolutionists. In the last decade numerous evolutionists have admitted that the actual scientific evidence in the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Some scientists have acknowledged that they have not found any evidence at all in the fossil record of animals with partially developed organs such as legs, brains or eyes. Yet their theory of evolution, if true, demands that the fossil record must contain millions of such examples. A strong supporter of the theory of evolution, T. L. Moor, wrote, ‘ The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone. Another evolutionist, Dr. Miles Eldredge, has written, ‘We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive
Change), all the while really knowing that it does not.†Another evolutionist scientist, Dr. Solly Zuckerman admitted the truth when she wrote, (the record or reckless speculation of human origins) is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this filed at all. Dr. Paul Davies wrote about his personal beliefs and his estimate of the views of other physicists in a fascinating article entitled “ The Christian Perspective of a Scientist†in the academic magazine New Scientist. Dr. Davies wrote, “ The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is something behind it all is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists†( Paul Davies, New Scientist, June 1983, p. 638). Another evolutionist, D.M. S. Watson, admitted: Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be prove by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative- special creation- is clearly incredible.â€Â