Stephen Hawking's God Like Fine-tuned Universe

When one looks into the discussions of creationism vs evolution, there is always the contingent that wants to show that science can somehow be used to prove creationism. This is not a belief of mine and I think it is a general waste of time. My view of the scientific method is after one constructs a hypothesis, the rest of the process is primarily aimed at disproving it (all scientific theories will be eventually disproved). But what is learned disproving theories is what moves science forward. Therefore, if a person like myself does believe in creationism, then they know that science will likely never really catch up with such a complex issue; meaning the two are not in conflict, but science as we know it is just too limited. However, there are some aspects of Stephen Hawking “Fine-tuned Universe” that seems to fall far short of his self-described atheists views and it’s similarities to the creationists and Intelligent Design.

One of the major overlaps between Intelligent Design and Fine-tuned Universe is that rather than our planet being fragile and in of careful need of stewardship even to the point of trying to protect the climate from over warming, Earth is a robust planet, fine tuned for life, and rather than being easily thrown off kilter, it is intensely self correcting, always re-balancing to abundantly support life. In his new book “The Grand Design”, Hawking seems to go out of way to prove this point.

*“The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some to the idea that this grand design has a Grand Designer…True, the laws of the universe seem tailor made for humans.”

*“Many improbable occurrences conspire to create Earth’s human friendly design… We need liquid water to exist, and if the earth were too close (to the sun) it would all but boil off; if it is too far it would freeze…(or) even a small disturbance in gravity…would send the planet off it’s orbit and cause it to spiral into or away from the sun.”

*“It is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seems oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe-and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor made to support us and if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration…The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements- especially carbon could be produced and remain stable…Even that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space.”

*“(At the atomic level) if protons were just 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms, again of course making all life impossible…(So) most of the…laws of nature appear fine tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amount, the universe would be…unsuitable for the development of life…The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine tuned.”

The proponents of Intelligent Design has used these exact arguments to prove that it would be mathematically impossible for all this fine-tuning to exist were there not a “Grand Designer” and interestingly enough Hawking’s agrees. But this is where he ventures far beyond Acom’s razor. Where Hawking goes with this is the theoretical physics M theory. Without going into is parent String theory, Hawkins explains that there was not just one Big Bang, there was an infinite number of big bangs, each one creating a separate universe. So in order to explain the complexity of the universe and the fine-tuning toward life, Hawking’s has reconstructed the quote that if you gave a million monkeys typewriters and set them to work, they’d eventually come up with the entire works of William Shakespeare, or out of an infinite number of Universes, one would be fine-tuned for life. You also have the Big Bang Theory, which interestingly enough has also been embraced by Intelligent Design due to its commonality with God suddenly creating something out of nothing. What I find most interesting about Hawking is he really doesn’t dispel the belief in a God, as long as God does not violate the laws of physics. And while I don’t claim the intelligence to truly dispel Hawking’s , one is still left with the bigger question as David Misialowski asks,“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

*Thanks to Rene Schlaepfer of Twin Lakes Church for the Hawking's quotes.