Human existence is possible because the constants of
physics and the parameters for the universe and for planet
Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges.
John Wheeler and others interpret these amazing
coincidences╙ as proof that human existence somehow
determines the design of the universe. Drawing an
illogical parallel with delayed-choice experiments in
quantum mechanics, they say that observations
by humans influence the design of the universe,
not only now, but back to the beginning.
Versions of what is called the anthropic principle reflect
current philosophical and religious leanings towards the
deification of man.
They produce no evidence to support the notion that man's
present acts can influence past events. Furthermore, their
analogies with quantum mechanics break down on this point.
The coincidental values of the constants of physics and the
parameters of the universe point, rather, to a designer who
transcends the dimensions and limits of the physical universe.
cosmic connection
Now that the limits and parameters of the universe can
be calculated, and some even directly measured, astronomers and
physicists have begun to recognize a connection between these
limits and parameters and the existence of life.
It is impossible to imagine a universe containing life
in which any one of the fundamental constants of physics
or any one of the fundamental parmeters of the universe is
different, even slightly so, in one way or another.
From this recognition arises the anthropic principle everything
about the universe tends toward man, toward making life possible
and sustaining it. The first popularizer of the principle,
American physicist John Wheeler, describes it in this way,
life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery
and design of the world.1.
Of course, design in the natural world has been acknowledged
since the beginning of recorded history. Divine design
is the message of each of the several hundred creation accounts
that form the basis of the world╒s religions.2, 3
The idea that the natural world was designed especially for
mankind is the very bedrock of the Greek, as well as of
the Judeo-Christian world-view. Western philosophers of
the post-Roman era went so far as to formalize a discipline called
teleology the study of the evide overall design and purpose in
nature. Teleology attracted such luminaries as Augustine,
Maimonides, Aquinas, Newton, and Paley, all of whom gave it
much of their lifes work.
Dirac and Dickes coincidences
One of the first to recognize that design may also apply
to the gross features of the universe was American
physicist Robert Dicke. In 1961 he noted that life is
possible in the universe only because of the special relationships
among certain cosmological parameters4 (relationships researched
by British physicist Paul Dirac twenty-four years earlier5).
Dirac noted that the number of baryons (protons plus neutrons)
in the universe is the square of the gravitational constant as
well as the square of the age of the universe (both expressed as
dimensionless numbers). Dicke discerned that a slight change
in either of these relationships means that there would be no
window of time in the development of the universe during which
life could exist. Stars of the right type for sustaining life
supportable planets only can occur during a certain range of age
the universe.
Similarly, stars of the right type only can form for a narrow
range of values of the gravitational constant.
In recent years these and other parameters for the universe have
been much more sharply defined and analyzed. In the process,
nearly two dozen coincidences indicating design have been
acknowledged:
1. The gravitational coupling constan i.e., the force of gravity,
determines what kinds of stars are possible in the universe.
If the gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation
would proceed more efficiently and all stars would be more massive
than our sun by at least 1.4 times.
These large stars are important in that they alone manufacture elements
heavier than iron, and they alone disperse elements heavier than
beryllium to the interstellar medium. Such elements are essential
for the formation of planets as well as of living things in any form.
However, these stars burn too rapidly and too unevenly to maintain
life-supporting conditions on surrounding planets. Stars as small
as our sun are necessary for that.
On the other hand, if the gravitational force were slightly weaker,
all stars would have less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun.
Though such stars burn long enough and evenly enough to maintain life-
supporting planets, there would be no heavy elements necessary for
building such planets or life itself.
2. The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the
particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear
force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold
together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.
If this force were slightly stronger, not only would hydrogen
be rare in the universe, but the supply of the various life-
essential elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from
the fission of very heavy elements) would be insufficient. Either
way, life would be impossible.
3. The weak nuclear force coupling constant affects the behavior
of leptons. Leptons form a whole class of elementary particles
(e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in
strong nuclear reactions. The most familiar weak interaction
effect is radioactivity, in particular, the beta decay reaction:
neutron proton + electron + neutrino.
The availability of neutrons as the universe cools through
temperatures appropriate for nuclear fusion determines the
amount of helium produced during the first few minutes of the
big bang.
If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger,
neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less
available. Hence, little or no helium would be produced from the
big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient
for the constructing of life would not be made by the nuclear
furnaces inside stars.
On the other hand, if this constant were slightly smaller, the big
bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with
a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars,
and again life would not be possible.
A second, possibly more delicate, balance occurs for supernovae.
It appears that an outward surge of neutrinos determines whether
or not a supernova is able to eject its heavy elements into outer space.
If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger,
neutrinos would pass through a supernova╒s envelop without disturbing
it. Hence, the heavy elements produced by the supernova would remain
in the core. If the constant were slightly smaller, the neutrinos would
not be capab
Again, the heavy elements essential for life would remain trapped
forever within the cores of supernovae.
4. The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to
protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about
atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form
molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly
smaller, no electrons would be held in orbits about nuclei.
If it were slightly larger, an atom could not share an electron orbit
with other atoms. Either way, molecules, and hence life, would
be impossible.
5. The ratio of electron to proton mass also determines the
characteristics of the orbits of electrons about nuclei.
A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. If
the electron to proton mass ratio were slightly larger or
slightly smaller, again, molecules would not form, and life
would be impossible.
6. The age of the universe governs what kinds of stars exist. It
takes about three billion years for the first stars to form.
It takes another ten or twelve billion years for supernovae to
spew out enough heavy elements to make possible stars like our
sun, stars capable of spawning rocky planets. Yet another few
billion years is necessary for solar-type stars to stabilize
sufficiently to support advanced life on any of its planets.
Hence, if the universe were just a couple of billion years
younger, no environment suitable for life would exist.
However, if the universe were about ten (or more) billion years
older than it is, there would be no solar-type stars in a stable
burning phase in the right part of a galaxy. In other words, the
window of time during which life is possible in the universe is
relatively narrow.
7. The expansion rate of the universe determines what kinds of
stars, if any, form in the universe. If the rate of expansion were
slightly less, the whole universe would have recollapsed before any
solar-type stars could have settled into a stable burning phase.
If the universe were expanding slightly more rapidly, no galaxies
(and hence no stars) would condense from the general expansion.
How critical is this expansion rate? According to Alan Guth,6
it must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 1055.
Guth, however, suggests that his inflationary model, given certain
values for the four fundamental forces of physics, may provide
a natural explanation for the critical expansion rate.
8. The entropy level of the universe affects the condensation of
massive systems. The universe contains 100,000,000 photons for
every baryon. This makes the universe extremely entropic, i.e.
a very efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy
level for the universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems
would form (and therefore no stars). If the entropy level were
slightly smaller, the galactic systems that formed would effectively
trap radiation and prevent any fragmentation of the systems into
stars. Either way the universe would be devoid of stars and, thus,
of life. (Some models for the universe relate this coincidence to
a dependence of entropy upon the gravitational coupling constant.7,
8)
9. The mass of the universe (actually mass + energy, since E = mc2)
determines how much nuclear burning takes place as the universe cools
from the hot big bang. If the mass were slightly larger, too much
deuterium (hydrogen atoms with nuclei containing both a proton and a
neutron) would form during the cooling of the big bang. Deuterium
is a powerful catalyst for subsequent nuclear burning in stars.
This extra deuterium would cause stars to burn much too rapidly to
sustain life on any possible planet.
On the other hand, if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller,
no helium would be generated during the cooling of the big bang.
Without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for
life. Thus, we see a reason why the universe is as big as it is.
If it were any smaller (or larger), not even one planet like the
earth would be possible.
10. The uniformity of the universe determines its stellar components.
Our universe has a high degree of uniformity. Such uniformity is
considered to arise most probably from a brief period of inflationary
expansion near the time of the origin of the universe. If the
inflation (or some other mechanism) had not smoothed the universe
to the degree we see, the universe would have developed into a
plethora of black holes separated by virtually empty space.
On the other had, if the universe were smoothed beyond this degree,
stars, star clusters, and galaxies may never have formed at all.
Either way, the resultant universe would be incapable of supporting
life.
11. The stability of the proton affects the quantity of matter in
the universe and also the radiation level as it pertains to higher
life forms. Each proton contains three quarks. Through the agency
of other particles (called bosons) quarks decay into antiquarks, pions,
and positive electrons. Currently in our universe this decay process
occurs on the average of only once per proton per 1032 years.b
If that rate were greater, the biological consequences for large
animals and man would be catastrophic, for the proton decays would
deliver lethal doses of radiation.
On the other hand, if the proton were more stable (less easily
formed and less likely to decay), less matter would have emerged
from events occuring in the first split second of the universe╒s
existence. There would be insufficient matter in the universe for
life to be possible.
12. The fine structure constants relate directly to each of the
four fundamental forces of physics (gravitational, electromagnetic,
strong nuclear, and weak nuclear). Compared to the coupling constants,
the fine structure constants typically yield stricter design constraints
for the universe. For example, the electromagnetic fine structure
constant affects the opacity of stellar material. (Opacity is the degree
to which a material permits radiant energy to pass through).
In star formation, gravity pulls material together while thermal motions
tend to pull it apart. An increase in the opacity of this material
will limit the effect of thermal motions. Hence, smaller clumps of
material will be able to overcome the resistance of the thermal motions.
If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly larger,
all the stars would be less than 0.7 times the mass of the sun.
If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly smaller,
all the stars would be more than 1.8 times the mass of the sun.
13. The velocity of light can be expressed in a variety of ways
as a function of any one of the fundamental forces of physics or
as a function of one of the fine structure constants. Hence, in
the case of this constant, too, the slightest change, up or down,
would negate any possibility for life in the universe.
14. The 8Be, 12C, and 16O nuclear energy levels affect the
manufacture and abundances of elements essential to life. Atomic
nuclei exist in various discrete energy levels. A transition from
one level to another occurs through the emission or capture of a
photon that possesses precisely the energy difference between the
two levels. The first coincidence here is that 8Be decays in just
10-15 seconds. Because 8Be is so highly unstable, it slows down
the fusion process. If it were more stable, fusion of heavier
elements would proceed so readily that catastrophic stellar explosions
would result. Such explosions would prevent the formation of many
heavy elements essential for life. On the other hand, if 8Be were
even more unstable, element production beyond 8Be would not occur.
The second coincidence is that 12C happens to have a nuclear energy
level very slightly above the sum of the energy levels for 8Be and
4He. Anything other than this precise nuclear energy level for 12C
would guarantee insufficient carbon production for life.
The third coincidence is that 16O has exactly the right nuclear energy
level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen
or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle,
who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that a
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry
and biology.10
15. The distance between stars affects the orbits and even the
existence of planets. The average distance between stars in
our part of the galaxy is about 30 trillion miles. If this distance
were slightly smaller, the gravitational interaction between stars
would be so strong as to destabilize planetary orbits. T
his destabilization would create extreme temperature variations
on the planet. If this distance were slightly larger, the heavy
element debris thrown out by supernovae would be so thinly distributed
that rocky planets like earth would never form. The average distance
between stars is just right to make possible a planetary system such
as our own.
16. The rate of luminosity increase for stars affects the temperature
conditions on surrounding planets. Small stars, like the sun, settle
into a stable burning phase once the hydrogen fusion process ignites
within their core. However, during this stable burning phase such
stars undergo a very gradual increase in their luminosity. This
gradual increase is perfectly suitable for the gradual introduction of
life forms, in a sequence from primitive to advanced, upon a planet.
If the rate of increase were slightly greater, a runaway green house
effectc would be felt sometime between the introduction of the primitive
and the introduction of the advanced life forms. If the rate of
increase were slightly smaller, a runaway freezingd of the oceans
and lakes would occur. Either way, the planet╒s temperature would
become too extreme for advanced life or even for the long-term survival
of primitive life.
This list of sensitive constants is by no means complete. And yet
it demonstrates why a growing number of physicists and astronomers
have become convinced that the universe was not only divinely brought
into existence but also divinely designed. American astronomer George
Greenstein expresses his thoughts:
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that
some supernatural agency or, rather, Agency must be involved.
Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled
upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was
it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos
for our benefit?11
It is not just the universe that bears evidence for design. The earth
itself reveals such evidence. Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, and Iosef
Shklovsky were among the first astronomers to concede this point
when they attempted to estimate the number planets in the universe
with environments favorable for the support of life.
In the early 1960s they recognized that only a certain kind of
star with a planet just the right distance from that star would
provide the necessary conditions for life.12 On this they made
some rather optimistic estimates for the probability of finding life
elsewhere in the universe. Shklovsky and Sagan, for example, claimed
that 0.001 percent of all stars could have a planet upon which
advanced life resides.13
While their analysis was a step in the right direction, it
overestimated the range of permissible star types and the range
of permissible planetary distances. It also ignored many other
significant factors. A sample of parameters sensitive for the
support of life on a planet are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Evidence for the design of the sun-earth-moon system14 - 31
The following parameters for cannot exceed certain limits without
disturbing the earths capacity to support life. Some of these
parameters are more narrowly confining than others. For
example, the first parameter would eliminate only half the
stars from candidacy for life-supporting systems, whereas parameters
five, seven, and eight would each eliminate more than ninety-nine
in a hundred star-planet systems.
Not only must the parameters for life support fall within a
certain restrictive range, but they must remain relatively constant
over time. And we know that several, such as parameters fourteen
through nineteen, are subject to potentially catastrophic fluctuation.
In addition to the parameters listed here, there are others, such
as the eccentricity of a planets orbit, that have an upper (or a
lower) limit only.
1. number of star companions
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits
if less than one: not enough heat produced for life
2. parent star birth date
if more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase
if less recent: stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements
3. parent star age
if older: luminosity of star would not be sufficiently stable
if younger: luminosity of star would not be sufficiently stable
4. parent star distance from center of galaxy
if greater: not enough heavy elements to make rocky planets
if less: stellar density and radiation would be too great
5. parent star mass
if greater: luminosity output from the star would not be sufficiently stable
if less: range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow;
tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the
right distance
6. parent star color
if redder: insufficient photosynthetic response
if bluer: insufficient photosynthetic response
7. surface gravity
if stronger: planets atmosphere would retain huge amounts of ammonia
and methane
if weaker: planets atmosphere would lose too much water
8. distance from parent star
if farther away: too cool for a stable water cycle
if closer: too warm for a stable water cycle
9. thickness of crust
if thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the
atmosphere to the crust
if thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great
10. rotation period
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great
11. gravitational interaction with a moon
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and
rotational period would be too severe
if less: earth╒s orbital obliquity would change too much
causing climatic instabilities
12. magnetic field
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
if weaker: no protection from solar wind particles
13. axial tilt
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great
if less: surface temperature differences would be too great
14. albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface)
if greater: runaway ice age would develop
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
15. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
if larger: life functions would proceed too quickly
if smaller: life functions would proceed too slowly
16. carbon dioxide and water vapor levels in atmosphere
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: insufficient greenhouse effect
17. ozone level in atmosphere
if greater: surface temperatures would become too low
if less: surface temperatures would be too high; too much
uv radiation at surface;
18. atmospheric electric discharge rate
if greater: too much fire destruction
if less: too little nitrogen fixing in the soil
19. seismic activity
if greater: destruction of too many life-forms
if less: nutrients on ocean floors would not be uplifted
About a dozen other parameters, such as atmospheric chemical
composition, currently are being researched for their sensitivity
in the support of life. However, the eighteen listed in Table
1 in themselves lead safely to the conclusion that much fewer
than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will
have a planet capable of sustaining life. Considering that the
universe contains only about a trillion galaxies, each averaging
a hundred billion stars,e we can see that not even one place
be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary
conditions to sustain life.f No wonder Robert Rood and James
Trefil14 and others have surmised that intelligent physical life
exists only on the earth. It seems abundantly clear that the
earth, too, in addition to the universe, has experienced divine design.
man the Creator?
The growing evidence of design would seem to provide further
convincing support for the belief that the Creator-God of the
Bible formed the universe and the earth. Even Paul Davies concedes
that the impression of design is overwhelming. 32 There must exist
a designer. Yet, for whatever reasons, a few astrophysicists still
battle the conclusion. Perhaps the designer is not God. But,
if the designer is not God, who is? The alternative, some suggest,
is man himself.
The evidence proffered for man as the creator comes from an
analogy to delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics.
In such experiments it appears that the observer can influence the
outcome of quantum mechanical events. With every quantum particle
there is an associated wave. This wave represents the probability of
finding the particle at a particular point in space. Before the
particle is detected there is no specific knowledge of its location
only a probability of where it might be. But, once the particle has
been detected, its exact location is known. In this sense, the act
of observation is said by some to give reality to the particle. What
is true for a quantum particle, they continue, may be true for the
universe at large.
American physicist John Wheeler sees the universe as a gigantic feed-back loop.
The Universe [capitalized in the original] starts small at the big bang,
grows in size, gives rise to life and observers and observing equipment.
The observing equipment, in turn, through the elementary quantum processes
that terminate on it, takes part in giving tangible reality to events
that occurred long before there was any life anywhere.33
In other words, the universe creates man, but man through his
observations of the universe brings the universe into real existence.
George Greenstein is more direct in positing that the universe brought
forth life in order to exist that the very cosmos does not exist unless
observed. 34 Here we find a reflection of the question debated in
freshmen philosophy classes across the land:
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to see it
or hear it, does it really fall?
Quantum mechanics merely shows us that in the micro world of
particle physics man is limited in his ability to measure quantum
effects. Since quantum entities at any moment have the potential
or possibility of behaving either as particles or waves, it is
impossible, for example, to accurately measure both the position
and the momentum of a quantum entity (the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle). By choosing to determine the position of the entity
the human observer has thereby lost information about its momentum.
It is not that the observer gives reality to the entity, but rather
the observer chooses what aspect of the reality of the entity he wishes
to discern. It is not that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle disproves
the principle of causality, but simply that the causality is hidden from
human investigation. The cause of the quantum effect is not lacking, nor
is it mysteriously linked to the human observation of the effect after
the fact.g
This misapplication of Heisenberg╒s uncertainty principle is
but one defect in but one version of the new observer-as-creator
propositions derived from quantum physics. Some other flaws are
summarized here:
ÑQuantum mechanical limitations apply only to micro, not macro,
systems. The relative uncertainty approaches zero as the number
of quantum particles in the system increases. Therefore, what is
true for a quantum particle would not be true for the universe at
large.
ÑThe time separation between a quantum event and its observed
result is always a relatively short one (at least for the analogies
under discussion). A multi-billion year time separation far from
fits the picture.
ÑThe arrow of time has never been observed to reverse, nor do we
see any traces of a reversal beyond the scope of our observations.
Time and causality move inexorably forward. Therefore, to suggest
that human activity now somehow can affect events billions of years
in the past is nothing short of absurd.
ÑIntelligence, or personality, is not a factor in the observation of
quantum mechanical events. Photographic plates, for example, are
perfectly capable of performing observations.
ÑBoth relativity and the gauge theory of quantum mechanics, now
established beyond reasonable question by experimental evidence,
37 state that the correct description of nature is that in which
the human observer is irrelevant.
Science has yet to produce a shred of evidence to support
the notion that man created his universe.
universe becoming God?
In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, British astronomer John
Barrow and American mathematical physicist Frank Tipler,38 begin
by reviewing evidences for design of the universe, then go on
to address several radical versions of the anthropic principle,
including Wheelers feed-back loop connection between mankind and
the universe. Referring to such theories as PAP (participatory
anthropic principle), they propose, instead, FAP (final anthropic
principle).
In their FAP, the life that is now in the universe (and, according
to PAP, created the universe) will continue to evolve until it reaches
a state of totality that they call the Omega Point. At
the Omega Point Life will have gained control of all matter and
forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose
existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all
spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and
will have stored an infinite amount of information including all
bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know.39
In a footnote they declare that the totality of life at the Omega
Point is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient! 40 L
Let me translate: the universe created man, man created the
universe, and together the universe and man in the end will
become the Almighty transcendent Creator. Martin Gardner gives
this evaluation of their idea:
What should one make of this quartet of WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP?
In my not so humble opinion I think the last principle is best
called CRAP, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.41
In their persistent rejection of an eternal transcendent Creator,
cosmologists seem to be resorting to more and more absurd
alternatives.
An exhortation from the Bible is appropriate, "See to it that
no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy."42
insufficient universe
It is clear that man is too limited to have created the universe.
But, it is also evident that the universe is too limited to have
created man. The universe contains no more than 1080 baryonsh and
has been in existence for no more than 1018 seconds.
Compared to the inorganic systems comprising the universe, biological
systems are enormously complex. The genome (complete set
of chromosomes necessary for reproduction) of an E Coli bacterium
has the equivalent of about two million amino acid residues.
A single human cell contains the equivalent of about six billion
amino acid residues. Moreover, unlike inorganic systems, the sequence
in which the individual components (amino acids) are assembled is
critical for the survival of biological systems. Also, only amino
acids with left handed configurations can be used in protein synthesis,
the amino acids can be joined only by peptide bonds, each amino acid
first must be activated by a specific enzyme, and multiple special
enzymes (enzymes themselves are enormously complex sequence-critical
molecules) are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before
protein synthesis can begin or end.
The bottom line is that the universe is at least ten billion
orders of magnitude (a factor of 1010,000,000,000 times) too
small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural
processes. These kinds of calculations have been done by researchers,
both non-theists and theists, in a variety of disciplines.43 - 58
Invoking other universes cannot solve the problem. All such models
require that the additional universes remain totally out of contact
with one another, that is, their space-time manifolds cannot overlap.
The only explanation left to us to tell how living organisms received
their highly complex and ordered configurations is that an intelligent,
transcendent Creator personally infused this information.
An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have brought the universe
into existence. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have
designed the universe. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must
have designed planet earth. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must
have designed life.
REFERENCES
1. Wheeler, John A. ╥Foreword,╙ in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler. (Oxford, U. K.: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. vii.
2. Franz, Marie-Louise. Patterns of Creativity Mirrored in Creation Myths. (Zurich: Spring, 1972).
3. Kilzhaber, Albert R. Myths, Fables, and Folktales. (New York: Holt, 1974), pp. 113-114.
4. Dirac, P. A. M. ╥The Cosmological Constants,╙ in Nature 139. (1937), p. 323.
5. Dicke, Robert H. ╥Dirac╒s Cosmology and Mach╒s Principle,╙ in Nature, 192. (1961), pp. 440-441.
6. Guth, Alan H. ╥Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems,╙ in Physical Review D, 23. (1981), p. 348.
7. Carr, B. J. and Rees, M. J. ╥The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World,╙ in Nature, 278. (1979), p. 610.
8. Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 401-402.
9. Trefil, James S. The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics from before the First Millisecond to the Present Universe. (New York: Scribner╒s Sons, 1983), pp. 141-142.
10. Hoyle, Fred. ╥The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,╙ in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p. 16.
11. Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. (New York: William Morrow, 1988), pp. 26-27.
12. Shklovskii, I. S. and Sagan, Carl. Intelligent Life in the Universe. (San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1966), pp. 343-350.
13. Ibid., pp. 413.
14. Rood, Robert T. and Trefil, James S. Are We Alone? The Possibility of Extraterrestrial Civilizations. (New York: Charles Scribner╒s Sons, 1983).
15. Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 510-575.
16. Anderson, Don L. "The Earth as a Planet: Paradigms and Paradoxes," in Science, 223. (1984), pp. 347-355.
17. Campbell, I. H. and Taylor, S. R. "No Water, No Granite - No Oceans, No Continents," in Geophysical Research Letters, 10. (1983), pp. 1061-1064.
18. Carter, Brandon. "The Anthropic Principle and Its Implications for Biological Evolution," in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 310. (1983), pp. 352-363.
19. Hammond, Allen H. "The Uniqueness of the Earth's Climate," in Science, 187. (1975), p. 245.
20. Toon, Owen B. and Olson, Steve. "The Warm Earth," in Science 85, October. (1985), pp. 50- 57.
21. Gale, George. "The Anthropic Principle," in Scientific American, 245, No. 6. (1981), pp. 154-171.
22. Ross, Hugh. Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective. (Pasadena, California: Reasons to Believe, 1983), pp. 6-7.
24. Ter Harr, D. ╥On the Origin of the Solar System,╙ in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 5. (1967), pp. 267-278.
25. Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. (New York: William Morrow, 1988), pp. 68-97.
26. Templeton, John M. ╥God Reveals Himself in the Astronomical and in the Infinitesimal,╙ in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984. (1984), pp. 196-198.
27. Hart, Michael H. ╥The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth,╙ in Icarus, 33. (1978), pp. 23-39.
28. Hart, Michael H. ╥Habitable Zones about Main Sequence Stars,╙ in Icarus, 37. (1979), pp. 351-357.
29. Owen, Tobias, Cess, Robert D., and Ramanathan, V. ╥Enhanced CO2 Greenhouse to Compensate for Reduced Solar Luminosity on Early Earth,╙ in Nature, 277. (1979), pp. 640-641.
30. Ward, William R. ╥Comments on the Long-Term Stability of the Earth╒s Obliquity,╙ in Icarus, 50. (1982), pp. 444-448.
31. Gribbin, John. ╥The Origin of Life: Earth╒s Lucky Break,╙ in Science Digest, May 1983. (1983), pp. 36-102.
32. Davies, Paul. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature╒s Creative Ability To Order the Universe. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988), p. 203.
33. Wheeler, John Archibald. ╥Bohr, Einstein, and the Strange Lesson of the Quantum,╙ in Mind in Nature. edited by Richard Q. Elvee. (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), p. 18.
34. Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. (New York: William Morrow, 1988), p. 223.
35. Herbert, Nick. Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics: An Excursion into Metaphysics and the Meaning of Reality. (New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1987), in particular pp. 16-29.
36. Jaki, Stanley L. Cosmos and Creator. (Edinburgh, U. K.: Scottish Academic Press, 1980), pp. 96-98.
37. Trefil, James S. The Moment of Creation. (New York: Charles Scribner╒s Sons, 1983), pp. 91-101.
38. Barrow, John D. and Tipler, Frank J. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
39. Ibid., p. 677.
40. Ibid., pp. 677, 682.
41. Gardner, Martin. ╥WAP, SAP, PAP, and FAP.╙ in The New York Review of Books, 23, May 8, 1986, No. 8. (1986), pp. 22-25.
42. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Colossians 2:8.
43. Yockey, Hubert P. "On the Information Content of Cytochrome c," in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67. (1977), pp. 345-376.
44. Yockey, Hubert P. "An Application of Information Theory to the Central Dogma and Sequence Hypothesis," in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 46. (1974), pp. 369-406.
45. Yockey, Hubert P. "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 91. (1981), pp. 13-31.
46. Lake, James A. "Evolving Ribosome Structure: Domains in Archaebacteria, Eubacteria, Eocytes, and Eukaryotes," in Annual Review of Biochemistry, 54. (1985), pp. 507-530.
47. Dufton, M. J. "Genetic Code Redundancy and the Evolutionary Stability of Protein Secondary Structure," in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 116. (1985), pp. 343-348.
48. Yockey, Hubert P. "Do Overlapping Genes Violate Molecular Biology and the Theory of Evolution," in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 80. (1979), pp. 21-26.
49. Abelson, John. "RNA Processing and the Intervening Sequence Problem," in Annual Review of Biochemistry, 48. (1979), pp. 1035-1069.
50. Hinegardner, Ralph T. and Engleberg, Joseph. "Rationale for a Universal Genetic Code," in Science, 142. (1963), pp. 1083-1085.
51. Neurath, Hans. "Protein Structure and Enzyme Action," in Reviews of Modern Physics, 31. (1959), pp. 185-190.
52. Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe. Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 14-97.
53. Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L., and Olsen, Roger. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984).
54. Shapiro, Robert. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. (New York: Summit Books, 1986), 117-131.
55. Ross, Hugh. Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective, second edition. (Pasadena, California: Reasons to Believe, 1983), pp. 9-10.
56. Yockey, Hubert P. "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67. (1977), pp. 377-398.
57. Duley, W. W. ╥Evidence Against Biological Grains in the Interstellar Medium,╙ in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 25. (1984), pp. 109-113.
58. Kok, Randall A., Taylor, John A., and Bradley, Walter L. ╥A Statistical Examination of Self-Ordering of Amino Acids in Proteins,╙ in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 18. (1988), pp. 135-142.
for a catalog of tapes, books, and materials on subjects pertaining to faith, science, and the Bible please write or call:
