# Scientific Evidence for God? (Odds Against Life) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490 "2014-12-29T23:51:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/1 "2014-12-29T23:51:20Z")
From the WSJ: [Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God](http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568) > [@](#): > > As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. > [@](#): > > As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here. > > Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. > [@](#): > > Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp. > > Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. Is this legit? (And/or new?) And if not, where is it wrong? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/2 "2014-12-30T00:15:29Z")
Not new. Absolutely everything is absurdly improbable, including the odds that I ate corn flakes this morning or that any particular poker hand had been dealt in the order that it was. What these arguments ignore is that it is almost certain that I ate something for breakfast or that cards were distributed. And unlikely odds do not necessarily require a God to resolve them. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/3 "2014-12-30T00:16:53Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > …And unlikely odds do not necessarily require a God to resolve them. ^ This being the main point of rebuttal. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/4 "2014-12-30T00:22:18Z")
There are at least 100 billion planets in our galaxy alone, and perhaps 400 billion or more. And extrapolating statistically there are at least 10,000 **billion billion** planets in the observable universe. We have already detected numerous potentially habitable planets in our own galaxy and our observations have barely begun. To suggest that earth is somehow special and unique in the galaxy, let alone the entire universe, is exactly the same absurdity as the religious geocentric ideas that preceded real science. The information about the delicate balance of fundamental forces is correct, and so are the values and ratios of particle masses; if electrons were just a little lighter, stars could never form. However these are just restatements of the anthropic principle, which simply says that these were the necessary conditions for us to be here and observe the conditions; if they were otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to observe them, and perhaps in many other universes there are no such observers. From a scientific standpoint it’s really a pretty meaningless truism. Odds against life? I’d say what the odds are really against is the existence of a bearded guy in a white robe living in the clouds who smiles down on us and occasionally waves a magic wand and works a miracle. I have no problem with spirituality, I just object to the stupid Biblical-literalist kind. I knew that Murdoch was turning the WSJ into right-wing dreck, but now it seems he’s also turning it into evangelical dreck. P.S.- Nothing I have seen in the WSJ about climate science has ever been right, either. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/5 "2014-12-30T00:24:57Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > ^ > This being the main point of rebuttal. Actually, I think you snipped the main point of rebuttal–the entire argument simply fails to understand probability. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/6 "2014-12-30T00:27:12Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > Actually, I think you snipped the main point of rebuttal–the entire argument simply fails to understand probability. There is a profound failure to understand probability in the WSJ editorial. But I don’t find that the validity of the probability argument matters in the least, because even if correct, no god is necessarily required to resolve unlikely odds. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/7 "2014-12-30T00:29:18Z")
Well, I agree with the lead of the article (which is all I could read without subscribing) that the “Secularization Thesis” is not correct, and there is growing consensus I believe for the same opinion among academics. However, fantastically unlikely does not equal miraculous. “It just happened” does not defy common sense because it did happen, we’re here. And while the parameters discussed in the OP are interesting, and I wouldn’t begrudge someone who wants to take from them some kind of meaning about our uniqueness etc., I haven’t seen any that actually contradict a natural model of planetary formation and abiogenesis. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/8 "2014-12-30T00:32:09Z")
Oh yes. We are finding that you can’t swing a cat without hitting a planet. I can imagine inhabitants of HD 189733b thanking their deity for the marvelously fine tuned universe that provides them with just exactly the right molten glass rains to support their lives. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/9 "2014-12-30T00:34:08Z")
Also…why do such articles never say “Brahma” or “Tawa” or “Gaea?” It’s always their god, but never someone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/10 "2014-12-30T00:35:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > From the WSJ: [Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God](http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568) > Is this legit? (And/or new?) And if not, where is it wrong? It is actually a collection of very old arguments just chained together to get a very ridiculous number. Responses to most of those points are in [Talkorigins.org](http://Talkorigins.org): [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html) > [@](#): > > The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940\_1.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html) > [@](#): > > The real world is quite a bit more complicated yet. In particular, large populations and genetic recombination via sex can allow beneficial mutations to accumulate at a greater rate. The biggest surprise to me is that the opinion from the WSJ linked in the OP uses the newly found planets as a way to _reduce_ the probabilities; mind you, the reality was that that there was no good evidence until recently that there were in fact planets around stars and the fact that we continue to discover planets nowadays is actually **increasing** the odds of life existing out there. Back in 2011 Lawrence Krauss did tackle the argument about the universal ratios and the seemingly long odds: > **[Lawrence Krauss vs. William Lane Craig | ScienceBlogs](https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/05/lawrence-krauss-vs-william-lan)** > > Lawrence Krauss vs. William Lane Craigby Lawrence Krauss > It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn't, how religious devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals. I suppose this is the... > [@](#): > > FineTuning: The appearance of design is one of the most subtle and confusing aspects of our Universe. Charles Darwin, with his Origin of Species, brilliantly and masterfully explained how the modern world, with its remarkable diversity of life forms may have the appearance of design without any design at all. It was one of the greatest and most striking scientific discoveries of all time, and it is the basis of modern biology and medicine, leading to countless other discoveries that have continued to save countless lives. > > Craig is aware, from his superficial reading of cosmology, of fine tuning problems in Cosmology, which he then immediately argued requires the existence of intelligent life, implying purpose to the universe. Not only does he fall prey to the same fallacy that those who, before Darwin enlightened us, ascribed design in biology fall prey to, he also continually misrepresented the nature of any apparent fine-tuning of quantities that we currently may not understand from first principles. I tried to explain to him that the current entropy of the universe is not fine tuned, nor need the initial entropy be fine tuned, because Inflation provides a mechanism to wipe out initial conditions and produce huge amounts of entropy, without God. I tried to explain to him that the Cosmological Constant, which is perhaps the most confusing finely tuned parameter we know of in the Universe, is fine tuned in a mathematical sense, compared to the naïve value we might expect on the basis of our current understanding of physical theory. > > While it is also true that if it were much larger, galaxies would not form, and therefore life forms that survive on solar power would not be likely to form with any significant abundance in the universe, I also explained that if the Cosmological Constant were in fact zero, which is what most theorists had predicted in advance, the conditions for life would be, if anything, more favorable, for the development and persistence of life in the cosmos. > > Finally, even if some parameters in our currently incomplete model of the universe do appear fine tuned for human life to be possible, (a) we have no idea if other values would allow other non-human-like intelligent life forms to evolve, since we have no understanding of the locus of all possible intelligent life forms. And, beyond this, just as bees are fine tuned to see the colors of flowers which they can pollinate as they go about their business does not indicate design, but rather natural selection, we currently have no idea if the conditions of our universe represent a kind of cosmic natural selection. > > If there are many universes, for example, as may be the case, and as are predicted in a variety of models, none of which were developed to address God issues, we would certainly expect to find ourselves only in those in which we can live. All of these are subtle and interesting issues worthy of discussion by knowledgeable and honest intellects. ---
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/11 "2014-12-30T00:35:41Z")
These WSJ guys should read more about the weak anthropic principle. This idea is definitely not new. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/12 "2014-12-30T00:37:35Z")
Also, you can’t reach the conclusion that life is fantastically unlikely here. You could, I suppose, argue that life is absolutely 100% impossible anywhere, and that its existence is thus evidence of a miracle, but so long as you allow for a probability that’s anywhere in the least greater than zero, it’s going to happen somewhere in an infinite universe, and the place where it happens, wherever that might be, is going to end up defined as “here”. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/13 "2014-12-30T00:38:55Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Absolutely everything is absurdly improbable, including the odds that I ate corn flakes this morning or that any particular poker hand had been dealt in the order that it was. What these arguments ignore is that it is almost certain that I ate something for breakfast or that cards were distributed. From a probability standpoint the issue here revolves around whether there is anything special about life. To the extent that this notion is derived from theology, the argument would then be circular. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/14 "2014-12-30T00:54:25Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Is this legit? (And/or new?) Appealing to cosmic constants is called the fine tuning argument and it’s been around for about a hundred years or so. It’s a more specific form of the Teleological argument, which goes back thousands of years and usually involves someone waxing poetically about how the universe is a well run clock that follows such beautiful laws. Newton was a fan: > [@](#): > > This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. Like many arguments for God it’s based on personal incredulity. The emotional language just in your quoted sections is kinda funny. “Feel free to gulp.” I ain’t wheezing. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/15 "2014-12-30T01:36:31Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > There is a profound failure to understand probability in the WSJ editorial. Can you expand on this? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/16 "2014-12-30T02:07:19Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Can you expand on this? [I already did.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18012368&postcount=4) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/17 "2014-12-30T02:25:09Z")
In a nutshell, a few at talkorigins explains it like this: “Probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.” For a longer explanation one should consult Richard Dawkins’ “Climbing Mount Improbable.” [http://www.todayinsci.com/D/Dawkins\_Richard/DawkinsRichard-Quotations.htm](http://www.todayinsci.com/D/Dawkins_Richard/DawkinsRichard-Quotations.htm) > [@](#): > > It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn’t work. You don’t need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound. One of the lectures he did awhile ago explaining the “smearing out the luck” with a lock analogy can be seen here: [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mep5qReiq04) ---
**Author:** ![slowlearner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@slowlearner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slowlearner)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/18 "2014-12-30T02:57:31Z")
I gave up on it all because even if the argument proves god exists it says nothing about what god might be. maybe god’s just a force that was required to get the universe going, then he/she/it dissipated like a popcorn fart. every god i can think of right now is just a heap big tribal chieftain. i think a good editor running a story proving the existence of god should always explain exactly what god is. my worst fear is that the wsj god is Hillary and that the porkalypse is closer than we know. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/19 "2014-12-30T03:25:39Z")
Just as an added note to what I said in #4, and with which I think most are in agreement, I would also note that [the author of that article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Metaxas) is basically a crusading evangelical who has been criticized as an intellectual lightweight with little regard for fact. No surprise there. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490/20 "2014-12-30T08:12:21Z")
> [@the WSJ editorialist](#): > > As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here. > > Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. I don’t think we necessarily “know” any of that at all. We now know there are lots and lots of planets Out There, which (barring weird lifeforms that somehow evolve in the middle of nebulas and clouds of interstellar dust, or in the atmospheres of stars, or super-intelligent shades of the color blue) would seem to be a number that we need to get a reasonable handle on in order to have any idea of how common life may be. And a lot of people have _suggested_ that this, that, or the other thing, is clearly, no doubt about it, absolutely necessary for life to have possibly evolved. But we still don’t actually _know_. For all we actually _know_, the Universe may be teeming with weird creatures who are all saying “Thank Xzlrorz our planet doesn’t have a giant moon/axial tilt/less than 90 degree axial tilt/huge gas giant in the outer reaches of our planetary system deflecting all of those life-giving and beneficial comets from hitting us! Otherwise Life As We Know It could never _possibly_ have evolved!” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-evidence-for-god-odds-against-life/708490.md?page=2)