The universe not only exists but is also called the cosmos, which comes from the Greek word meaning order. We, as conscious and highly ordered individuals, can only acknowledge the order in the universe because the order of the universe is unavoidable. Hence, it takes order to either appreciate it or to deny it. Life is the highest expression of order, and it is very complicated.

Things that are complicated warrant a special explanation. We desire to know why they are complicated and how they came to be the way they are. This is a driving force in the pursuit of understanding and animates countless people to redefine the contours of human knowledge. Life—even the seemingly “simple” forms of life like single-cell bacteria—is not only astronomically intricate, but is in fact very rare.[1] Life therefore deserves a very special explanation. In this episode, I will explain why there is life instead of things; that is, I will clarify why external variables that are conducive to life exist in the first place. Here, my primary concern is a broad lens that takes a look at the cosmos (and the laws that govern it) in order to find an explanation. In the next episode (TruthFinder Five), I will narrow my focus to consider how life originated by taking a closer look at the presupposed internal mechanism of the development of intelligent life—the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection. Many of the concepts and ideas here will lean on the intellectual capital of the last episode, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

When we look into the grand cosmos, there is a temptation to think that the universe has been meticulously planned and carefully thought out. Yet, experience tells us that acting on temptation can get us into trouble. Still, an unavoidable conclusion is that the Earth is a very unique and extraordinarily rare place.[2],[3] An enormous amount of observational data suggests the Earth happens to be in the right place, at the right time, under the right set of conditions.[4] The question then becomes why. In the grand, unfriendly ocean that is the cosmos, why are there conditions that are amicable to life on the oasis that is Earth? Is it because we just happened to get lucky? Is it because the universe was fine-tuned for intelligent life from the start? Is it because being “special” is an illusion and the Principle of Mediocrity—that there is absolutely nothing special about our situation—holds true? Are any of these claims far-fetched and audacious? Are any of these claims supported by empirical evidence?

Additionally, when we consider whether the universe shows signs of architectural planning, the immediate questions that beg to be asked are, “Who is the architect?” and “What are they like?” After all, theoretically speaking, any possible universe could be “built.” The real question is how good of an architect do we have. Figuratively speaking, a virtuoso could construct a universe that is a masterpiece, and a child could “design” a universe that is a haphazard mess. Does the architect have actual fingers or are they an immaterial, abstract “something” that prefers order—an idea that Einstein famously favored? Whatever a person’s beliefs are, it is a fact that exactness was needed to set the universe in motion,[5] and the universe by itself is a highly unlikely phenomenon.[6] And it is indeed strange that an improbable universe permits human beings who are so concerned with what is plausible.[7]

Let us return to our central question, “Why is there life instead of things?” There are divergent answers on this matter. On the one hand, as Richard Dawkins once said:

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”[8]

On the other hand, as Alister McGrath has written:

“Is it a pure coincidence that the laws of nature are such that life is possible? Might this not be an important clue to the nature and destiny of humanity?”[9]

Let us begin searching for some meaningful answers.


There is a buzzword that scientists use to describe the extremely precise and narrow balance of the initial conditions of the universe and the basic laws of the cosmos that make life possible—that word is fine-tuning. Fine-tuning refers to the constants and laws of nature. By “constants,” I am referring to things like the cosmological constant, to be discussed later. By “laws,” I am referring to entities like the force of gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force.[10]

Generally speaking, there are more than thirty natural laws and cosmological factors that require fine-tuning in order to bring about and maintain a universe that is amicable to life.[11],[12] Because of fine-tuning, we live on a planet that is favorable to life because conditions set by these parameters are life-permitting. Indeed, the laws and constants of nature exist everywhere in the universe, but variables interact in unique way to permit life on Earth. This is why, as far as we know, another civilization does not live on Mercury.

No matter where you are in the universe, for example, an observer will always experience the force of gravity. In Newton’s famous law, F=Gm1m2/r2. Here, gravitational force (F) is related to the constant of gravity (G) and the distance (r) between two masses (m1 and m2). If the gravitational constant were not fine-tuned to its current value, this would make life on Earth impossible. Because of gravity, the Earth is a specific size that retains an atmosphere, which filters out harmful radiation from space. Gravity also moderates climate by interaction with the oceans.[13] A higher gravitational constant would yield a stronger gravitational force that would crush us. It would also yield a planet a fraction of the size of Earth, which would be unsuitable to support an ecosystem, making life impossible. A weaker gravitational constant would yield a weaker gravitational force, and we would float away into space; also, stars and planets would not form, so we would have no place to live. Notably, if the gravitational constant changed by one part in 1040 (that’s 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001), then the Sun would not exist,[14] and the Moon would either crash into our planet or “float” away into space.

What is clear is that the laws of nature do not establish the value of their constants—they just simply are. So, the law of gravity exists and the value of the constant of gravity (G) is 6.674×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2. “G” could be a completely different value, yielding a completely different world. This of course begs the question as to where the values of the laws of nature come from, a concern that was addressed in the last episode when analyzing the fallacious idea that the universe came from nothing. In the end, we will always be left with the question of why the laws of nature are the way they are, and there really is no way around that.

As another example of fine-tuning, if the value of the weak nuclear force were changed by one part in 10100, life would not exist because elements would not form. An additional example is the strong nuclear force that holds atoms (protons and neutrons) together and therefore governs nuclear structure. A less than 1% change in the strong force would prevent the fusion of helium atoms in stars (red giants), which would inhibit carbon and oxygen production, thereby inhibiting life.[15],[16] If the strong force were lower, this would literally tear apart anything alive because there wouldn’t be enough strength to keep what we are made out of together.

An additional example—and perhaps the most breathtaking example of fine-tuning—is the cosmological constant (λ), which measures how dense energy is in the vacuum of space.

If this number were too big, planets (like Earth) wouldn’t form. If this number were a high negative value, the universe would recollapse just as it was trying to stretch its legs for the first time.[17] So, according to Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, the cosmological constant is “remarkably well adjusted in our favor.”[18] Furthermore, according to Dr. Robin Collins, the cosmological constant “is widely regarded as the single greatest problem facing physics and cosmology today.”[19] Why? Because the fine-tuning in the cosmological constant involves a degree of precision to one part in ten trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (10120).[20] The cosmological constant demands such precision that Collins equates fine-tuning to this exact degree to randomly throwing a dart across the infinite blackness of space and hitting a target one trillionth of one trillionth of an inch wide.[21] That target is smaller than a single atom—in other words, so small it’s invisible to the naked eye. So it is astronomically improbable for parameters like the cosmological constant to exist in the precise combination that they do with other constants, making our universe, “deeply, shockingly unlikely.”[22] Astronomer and physicist Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez says it plainly and clearly:

“We’ve found that our location in the universe, in our galaxy, in our solar system, as well as such things as the size and rotation of Earth, the mass of the moon and sun and so forth—a whole range of factors—conspire together in an amazing way to make Earth a habitable planet.”[23]

This statement by Dr. Gonzalez is crucial because it points to the fact that there is life instead of things because life is actually dependent on fine-tuning and (based on what we know about advanced life) life would not have arose in the absence of fine-tuning. That is, the material content of our universe and the forces that interact in the cosmos are prerequisites for the life-friendly cosmic habitat in which we live.[24]

Fine-tuning makes possible basic phenomena in the universe—such as hydrogen and oxygen atoms sticking together to form water—so that life can exist. In fact, there exists a sense of double fine-tuning in that the universe follows certain fundamental laws, and those laws cooperate with many other variables in one location—Earth—to permit life. Furthermore, our universe in general is life-prohibiting and a life-sustaining planet cannot exist anywhere it wants to. It must exist in a Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) where a planet can provide liquid water on its surface in addition to a long-term habitat for aerobic (oxygen requiring) animal life.[25] Even more, a planet must also exist in a Circumstellar Habitable Zone (CHZ) or a “Goldilocks zone” around a star (like our sun). Basically, if a planet is too close to a star, it will get too hot, water will evaporate, and life cannot exist. If a planet is too far away, it will get too cold and water and carbon will freeze, making life impossible. The earth obviously lies within this “Goldilocks zone,” and it never wanders outside of it.

The point being made here is that it is unreasonable to assume that on a small speck “somewhere out there” lives an advanced race of super-smart aliens. Why? Because, for the most part, “out there” will kill you (and you would need proof). The universe is not all the same and life demands very specific requirements without which it would not be possible. Medically speaking, for example, our bodies are roughly 60% water. Why? Because the processes of life (like pumping blood and transcribing DNA) require a solvent and water is the perfect solvent to facilitate this. Moreover, carbon forms the backbone of life because it forms the core of DNA, the “code” that programs life. Having either water or carbon alone is insufficient for life—what life needs is both of these things in the proper amounts and in the proper forms. Not to mention, the human body requires 25 essential elements (and simple bacteria require half that amount) to work properly. The majority of these elements are carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. For example, the sugar that keeps your brain working is a molecule made up of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen (C6H12O6). We breathe in oxygen to keep us alive. Atmospheric oxygen is fine-tuned at 21%; if oxygen levels are lower, you die of suffocation. If levels are too high, you die from oxygen toxicity. Of course, water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (H2O). Consequently, how water and carbon interact to facilitate life are well-established principles of organic chemistry.

I say all this to make the point that postulating different forms of life based upon different building blocks of life will not only violate what we know about life but also violate chemical principles that prove water and carbon are the ideal building blocks for life.[26] So, when I say “life,” I mean life as can be defined based on real-world observation, not speculation. Even more, “life” doesn’t necessarily mean complex intelligent life either—it means simple life such as microscopic bacteria that extract energy from the environment and reproduce. Of course, we could theoretically consider alternative universes governed by different laws of nature, in the same way that we could consider unicorns that live on a magical isle in the middle of the sea. We happen to exist in our universe, the only one that we have real evidence for.

On top of all of the fine-tuned variables discussed thus far, consider this list of quantifiable characteristics of the cosmos that must fall within narrow ranges to permit the existence of life:[27]

  • Electromagnetic force constant. If this were slightly stronger or weaker, life would not be possible for a multitude of reasons.[28]
  • Ratio of neutron to proton mass. If the former were not about 1.001 times the mass of the latter, life would not be possible.[29]
  • Strong nuclear force (already discussed). If this value varies by as little as 5%, life would not be possible.[30]
  • Mass density of the universe
  • Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
  • Ratio of space energy density to mass density
  • Entropy level of the universe
  • At 25%, fires would erupt. At 15%, we would suffocate.
  • Centrifugal force. If this force of planetary movement were not precisely balanced to gravitational forces, no planets would orbit the sun.
  • Velocity of light
  • Age of the universe
  • Uniformity of radiation
  • Homogeneity of the universe
  • Average distance between galaxies
  • Average distance between stars
  • Density of giant galaxies during early cosmic history
  • Strength of initial Big Bang explosion. Had this value differed in strength by as little as one part in 1060, the universe would collapse on itself or went “bang” too fast for stars to form. Both cases mean that life would be impossible.[31]

Also, take note of some astronomical peculiarities that permit life on Earth:

  • Planetary defense. Jupiter acts as a “comet shield” by deflecting comets en route to impact Earth. Jupiter’s gravitational field has been called a “cosmic vacuum cleaner.”[32] Mars and Venus act as “asteroid shields.”
  • Critical density of the universe. In order to permit life, the universe had to have maintained an exceptionally precise overall density. The precision of density demanded was so high that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e., 0.000000000000001) would have resulted in the universe crumbling. Obviously, this would make life impossible. Francis Collins describes this degree of precision as being akin to a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt (that is, trillions and trillions of pennies).[33]
  • The Sun. Our Sun is a special type of yellow dwarf star (G2 spectral type). Basically, it is very stable, is the right size, emits the right colors (red and blue), has the right metal composition, and is the right distance away to nurture a life-permitting environment on Earth. As far as stars go, a vast majority would be unsuitable to serve as a “sun” in our solar system.
  • The Moon. The Moon makes our seasons possible because it helps to stabilize the Earth in its orbit by stabilizing our axis of rotation. Without the Moon, our planet’s tilt would be much more dramatic, giving us unbearably hot summers and abominably cold winters. The Moon also helps with our tides, which helps in temperature regulation. That we have a moon as large as it is (relative to the Earth’s size) is also unique, not to mention that the Moon is thought to have collided with Earth billions of years ago, resulting in the habitable environment that we have now on Earth.[34]
  • Plate tectonics. Of all the planets and moons in our solar system, this phenomenon is only found on Earth.[35] Water lubricates and facilitates plate tectonics, which is critical to life. How? The movement of the plates regulates the Earth’s temperature as well as greenhouse gases. The decay of radioactive isotopes in the Earth’s core is what drives plate tectonics. This decay also animates the convection of iron deep inside the Earth, which creates the planet’s magnetic field that protects us from harmful radiation.[36]
  • Metal ores. Civilization and more advanced technology results from the prevalence of metal ores near the surface of the Earth. The mechanism for how this happened is the result of “an exact series of physical and chemical events, occurring in the right environment and sequence and followed by certain climatic conditions [which] can give rise to a high concentration of these compounds so crucial to the development of science and technology.”[37]

Can we really be sure that all of these observations point to objective fine-tuning? Well, if you insist that we compare our universe to others in order to ascertain that ours is really finely tuned, you have to realize that we already have a wealth of real evidence that points to fine-tuning. Just because someone else has an unproven idea does not mean we should reject the empirical evidence that we do have. That is, an absence of evidence for an alternative does not prove false the wealth of evidence for fine-tuning that we do have.

Back in the 1960s, Princeton physicist Robert Dicke made the observation that the universe would be incapable of permitting life if any one of a myriad of physical constants differed in value by even a small amount. This observation led to the development of the anthropic principle, or the idea that the universe was fine-tuned for human life to exist.[38]

(The mathematician Brandon Carter coined the term “anthropic principle” in the 1970s). The multitude of fine-tuned variables already discussed testifies to this principle. Anthropic comes from the Greek word anthropos meaning “human being.” The basic idea behind this principle is that the universe—from the very start—was fine-tuned for life in general and for advanced, intelligent life in particular. So, in order for us to be alive today, an extremely restrictive set of demands were necessary at the genesis of the cosmos. Back in the 1960s, astronomers could identify just a few solar system characteristics that required fine-tuning for human life to be possible. With the increase in scientific knowledge, by the end of 2001, astronomers had identified more than 150 finely tuned characteristics.[39] And, at least according to astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross, more than 900 characteristics of the Milky Way Galaxy are required to be fine-tuned for advanced life to be possible.[40] (It is clear here that science has actually opened a huge gap of knowledge in attempting to explain fine-tuning because the more we know the more aware of fine-tuning we have become.) In the 1960s, the odds that any given planet in the universe would possess the necessary conditions to support intelligent physical life were shown to be less than one in ten thousand.[41] In 2001, those odds shrank to less than one in a number so large (10173) that the odds are essentially zero[42] and thus functionally impossible. To truly understand how improbable those odds are, simply consider that there are 1070 atoms in the entire universe. As far as we know, the Earth is a solitary oasis of life in a cold, dark, hostile-to-life universe. There are countless more ways to be a dead world than a live one.

The anthropic principle is intriguing because it relies on empirical observations that tend to suggest that the universe was built for humanity,[43] but I will address this issue later on. Of all the fine-tuned parameters, most can only vary by about 1% before bad stuff begins to happen. Hence, these variables demand that even in a universe with 50 billion trillion planets, the odds of having just one planet with conditions suitable for life are less than one in 101,000.[44] Here again we see that these are odds so improbable that it makes the event functionally impossible. Just fine-tuning the weak nuclear force correctly, for example, is analogous to standing on Pluto with a blindfold, firing a gun at Earth, and expecting the bullet to hit the eye on the face of a dime sitting atop the Empire State Building. Now try to repeat that dozens and dozens of times with other variables. Good luck.

The easiest way to make all of this information about fine-tuning concrete is to imagine our world shrunk down to the size of a sphere that fills a concert hall. Next, imagine that our concert hall-sized Earth is enclosed in a transparent sphere and the conditions inside our “life-sphere” are set by hundreds of dials on a control panel at the base. One dial is for gravity, one for oxygen, one for electromagnetism, etc. Each dial is huge and has an enormous number of possible settings, which represent the total range of values for each constant. This means that an astronomical number of combinations exist when we consider all the different settings of all the different dials. With fine-tuning, all the dials are precisely set and life is permitted inside the sphere. Yet, if a monkey came into the hall and began “monkeying” with the dials by moving any one of them ever so slightly (even so small that to the naked eye, the dial doesn’t move), what the monkey will discover is that the impact on life inside the sphere would be catastrophic. Why? Because the monkey would drastically change the values that underlie the fundamental properties of our universe.

The point here is that there is a very sensitive, very precise set of conditions that are balanced on the edge of a razor in order to create a universe that is life-permitting. And, fine-tuning involves not only having certain parameters (a dial) but turning the dial to a very, very specific setting. Any small miniscule deviation from this delicate balance results in a universe that is life-prohibiting.

In our life-sphere analogy, if an unsuspecting observer happened to walk into the room, examined all of the dials, and looked at all the life teeming inside of the sphere, it would be reasonable to conclude that dials were fine-tuned. This highlights an important point: discoverability goes hand-in-hand with a life-permitting universe. That is, not only do we live in a universe that is fine-tuned for our existence but that same fine-tuning allows us to discover and then measure all those things that are, in fact, fine-tuned.[45] It’s almost as if fine-tuning wants to be discovered so that all of its hard work can be appreciated. We could, for example, live in a world where the atmosphere was a thick black cloud, we had no arms or legs, and we survived by being fed a constant stream of nutrients through an umbilical cord that was attached to a massive oak tree. In this world, we couldn’t see around us, so we couldn’t see the tree we are connected to nor could we ever begin to investigate the tree that sustains life. But we do live in a world where we have eyes, so we can look into a microscope and see what’s inside cells or look into a telescope to see what’s in space. We can then analyze what we see, process the information with our oxygen-nourished and sugar-fueled brains, and then objectively quantify the fine-tuning. Even more, the fine-tuning in nature and the cosmos is not discoverable by everyone— nature is clever enough that only the finest human minds can unlock and decode all the fine-tuning in the universe and then dazzle the rest of us with their findings.[46]

This doesn’t suggest that our earthly habitat is “the best” nor does it suggest that other habitats could not be discovered. Rather, with the fine-tuning, we can observe a favorable balance of competing conditions so that the architecture of the cosmos can still have life-threatening asteroids but also have life-preserving “asteroid shields” like Venus. The universe could have been devoid of asteroids altogether, but our universe has them along with a means to protect life against them. The point here is that the Earth is special because of the mere fact that Earth is cumulatively life-permitting, while the rest of the known universe is not. In many respects, Earth is the anomaly that draws attention to itself. If I ever meet little green men from far, far, away, then I will have a sufficient reason to change my mind. Consider the words of the late NASA scientist John A. O’Keefe:

“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures; our Darwinian claim to have done it all ourselves is as ridiculous and as charming as a baby’s brave efforts to stand on its own two feet and refuse his mother’s hand. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”[47]

In his book Nature’s Destiny, Michael J. Denton even makes the bold claim that every piece of our observable reality exists to create a livable habitat for humankind.[48]

So, the answer to this episode’s central question, “Why is there life instead of things?” is answered by fine-tuning. That is, life exists because a multitude of parameters in the universe are fine-tuned, and these variables conspire to permit life. The question now becomes why is the universe fine-tuned and what explains fine-tuning? This will be the focus of our attention now. The reader must be aware that the fact of fine-tuning is highly objective and relies on a logical assessment of the cumulative facts. The explanation for fine-tuning ultimately dabbles into a subjective analysis that is animated by ideology.

Next week, we will look at four possible explanations.

Dr. C. H. E. Sadaphal


[1] Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (Göttingen, Germany: Copernicus, 2009), xiv

[2] Ward, Rare Earth, 33

[3] Frank Press and Raymond Siever, Earth (New York: W.H. Freeman, 1986), 3

[4] Jimmy H. Davis and Harry L. Poe, Designer Universe (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 107

[5] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Oxford, 1989), 344

[6] Brad Lemley, “Why Is There Life?” Discover (November 2002)

[7] John Templeton, The Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation, 1998), 19

[8] Greg Easterbrook, “Of Genes and Meaninglessness,” Science 277 no. 5328 (August 1997): 892

[9] Alister McGrath, Glimpsing the Face of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 19

[10] These four constants are generally referred to as the four fundamental forces in physics.

[11] Stephen C. Meyer, “Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology,” in Michael J. Behe, et. al., eds., Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2000), 60

[12] Consider that each parameter or “dial” that fine-tunes our universe could of theoretically had an infinite number of different values.

[13] Press, Earth, 4

[14] Paul Davies Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 242

[15] Dennies Overbye, “A New View of Our Universe: Only One of Many,” New York Times, October 29, 2002, accessed December 20, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/science/a-new-view-of-our-universe-only-one-of-many.html

[16] And, increasing the mass of a neutron slightly would also cease the fusion process in stars that produces the energy for life.

[17] Steven Weinberg, “A Designer Universe?” New York Review of Books (October 21, 1999)

[18] Weinberg, Review

[19] Lee Strobel, Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 163

[20] A figure quoted by Nobel laureate, physicist, and atheist Steven Weinberg. See Steven Weinberg, “Life in the Universe,” Scientific American, October 1, 1994, 49

[21] Strobel, Creator, 164

[22] Brad Lemley, “Why Is There Life?” Discover, November 1st, 2000, http://discovermagazine.com/2000/nov/cover/

[23] Strobel, Creator, 203

[24] See Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2001)

[25] The zone is characterized by how the galaxy is shaped, protection from radiation, and the ability to form planets based upon the prevalence of heavy metals. For the original abstract see Guillermo Gonzalez, et al., “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution,” Icarus 152 (2001): 185–200, accessed December 23, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/icar.2001.6617


[26] Notably this train of thought does not presuppose that all forms of intelligent life must be human. It doesn’t have to because fine-tuning defines the contours of what type of life is possible. For example, as mentioned, if the strong nuclear force were different, then atoms could not stick together, which means organs can’t. What you would be left with is “life” only being able to be composed of atoms of hydrogen, which is insufficient for specified complex life.

[27] Most of these entries are taken from “RTB Design Compendium,” Reason.org, last accessed December 26, 2016, http://www.reasons.org/links/hugh/research-notes

[28] John Leslie, “How to Draw Conclusions From a Fine-Tuned Cosmos,” in Robert Russell, et. al., eds., Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Press, 1988), 299

[29] John Leslie, Universes (New York: Routledge, 1989), 39-40

[30] Leslie, “Fine-Tuned Cosmos,” 4

[31] Paul Davies, The Accidental Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 140

[32] Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Day Star Productions, 2004), 130

[33] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 72-73

[34] Ward, Earth, 266

[35] Ward, Earth, 220

[36] Ward, Earth, 191-220

[37] George Brimhall, “The Genesis of Ores,” Scientific American, May 1, 1991

[38] Robert H. Dicke, “Dirac’s Cosmology and Mach’s Principle,” Nature 192 (November 4, 1961): 440-441

[39] Hugh Ross, “Probability for a Life Support Body,” (Appendix B) in Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002)

[40] Hugh Ross, More Than A Theory (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009), 112

[41] I. S. Shklovskii and Carl Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe (San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1966), 342-61

[42] Ross, Lights, Appendix B

[43] Robert Jastrow, “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, 8

[44] Ross, Theory, 112

[45] Another way to say this is that there is a direct correlation between habitability and measurability. For an extensive book that clarifies this point, see Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, Our Privileged Planet (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2004)

[46] Adapted from a statement made by Paul Davies in Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 235-36

[47] John A. O’Keefe, “The Theological Impact of the New Cosmology,” in Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (Toronto: Reader’s Library, 160), 118

[48] Michael J. Denton, Nature’s Destiny (New York: The Free Press, 1998), 3-4

Leave a Reply