For
thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the
earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he
formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. Isaiah
45:18.
Man
is the pinnacle of our Lord’s special creation (Genesis 1:26). It is
unsurprising, then, to observe that He intricately tuned our planet and its
surroundings -- our solar system, our galaxy, and indeed our whole universe
-- with us in mind. We Christians describe this fact of design as ‘the
anthropic principle’.
One
need not be a Christian, however, to acknowledge that the conditions around
us are meticulously suited to our existence; scientists of all cosmological
persuasions perceive this meticulous suitability to be true -- and they, by
and large, describe it as ‘the anthropic principle’ (with many of them
referring to what has come to be known as ‘the weak anthropic principle’,
being a version of the principle as adjusted so as to uncontroversially
allow for the exclusion of a Designer). Atheists attribute these
meticulously suitable conditions to ‘chance’, concluding that we are simply
‘lucky’ to have evolved. Incidentally, the atheist’s supreme god is ‘chance’,
and his religion is that of evolution.
Imagine
(if you can!) such ‘luck’. University of Chicago astrophysicist Professor
Michael Turner noted, “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across
the entire universe and hit a bull’s eye one millimetre in diameter on the
other side.”
William
Paley (1743 – 1805) was a philosopher and a clergyman. In his book
Natural Theology, Paley
teleologically compared a stone to a watch. Nobody would disagree that the
complexity of the watch irrefutably displayed intelligent design. The
undeniably far greater complexity of life forms around him strengthened
Paley’s belief that an intelligent Designer created them. Wrote Paley:
“The conclusion of which the first
examination of the watch, of its works, construction, and movement,
suggested, was, that it must have had, for the cause and author of that
construction, an artificer, who understood its mechanism, and designed its
use. This conclusion is invincible” (1809, pp 16, 17) (emphasis his).
In
his literary work The Conduct of Life,
Transcendentalist Unitarian Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 – 1882) stated,
“Shallow men believe in luck … Strong men believe in cause and effect”
(1860, VI Worship). Emerson believed that “life is a perpetual instruction
in cause and effect.” So, is the anthropic principle borne of ‘luck’ or is
it borne of cause and effect? Shall we proclaim the anthropic principle or
shall we proclaim the ‘principle’ of mediocrity? Although Emerson hated
quotations, I shall indulge myself and take the liberty of allowing him to
answer these questions via a quotation: “All I have seen teaches me to
trust the Creator for all I have not seen.” Well put. I would add, “The
heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalms
19:1), taking heed of the general revelation of which the Holy Spirit has
warned us through the apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-20. Too often, sadly, how
a person decides in matters of cosmology betrays presuppositions hostile to
the truth; the same presuppositions blind such a one from seeing the truth.
At
this point, one ought to consider just how the heavens do declare the glory
of God and just how the skies do show the work of His hands. Although, to
this end, I shall not be endorsing the pre-Copernican, post-Aristarchan
Ptolemaic false concept of geocentricity (the having of the earth at the
centre of our solar system) as opposed to the theory of heliocentricity (the
having of the sun at the centre of our solar system) -- and please know that
the concept of geocentricity is nowhere endorsed in Scripture -- I shall be
endorsing both our centrality and our uncommonness. In terms of the
anthropic principle, accepting what you read here will certainly require
that you realise that man sees because he has eyes … but do not stop
thinking there; realise that man sees because he has eyes, and also realise
that man has eyes so that he can see!
Our
universe is, to put it unjustly simply, awe-inspiring. Oh, how it deeply
grieves me when credit for its existence and for its function is given to
nothing. Our omniscient Creator knew from before the foundation of the
world that man’s exploration of the cosmos would reach (by our meagre
standards) dizzying heights. This foreseen item of information was factored
into His special creation for the purpose of glory being given to the One
who created us to worship Him. Man’s love of sin, though, causes him to
actively avoid coming ‘face-to-face’ with his Creator, as so doing would
require that he come to terms with Judgement Day. Accordingly, man reacts
favourably to having his ears tickled by words (temporarily) religiously
uttered by untrustworthy common or garden unwise scientists. Why?? I
remind you that it is in no small measure because of sin being sooo sweet to
the flesh! Consequently, unregenerate man jealously gives all cosmic glory
-- in fact, all glory -- to nothing’s so-called ‘chance-driven’ big bang and
evolution, or he jealously gives all glory to some other man-made nothing
faith system and its religious god or gods.
I
hasten to clarify that I am in no way at all denigrating true science or
those who adhere to it. True science is confirmed by, and is in complete
harmony with, Scripture. Always remember that the fear of the LORD is the
beginning of wisdom and that the knowledge of the holy is understanding (Proverbs
9:10).
Daily,
more and more scientists of all manner of faith systems are signing their
names to a statement denouncing the big bang theory. To read this statement
and to peruse the list of names, please go to
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
.
In
order to fully appreciate the earth’s uniqueness as a place fit for our
habitation, one must first compare and contrast the conditions he enjoys
here with conditions elsewhere. My objective in the immediately succeeding
paragraphs, therefore, is to assist you to ably do just that. I shall
outline the biofriendliness (or otherwise!!) of potential homes in the
cosmos, and I shall also facilitate the comparison and contrast of these
‘renovator’s delights’ with our own home here … and glorify our marvellous
Creator and Sustainer Lord God in the process! Included in this dialogue
will be biofriendliness matters common throughout the universe -- at least
to the extent that our universe impacts upon us, it is biofriendly.
Helios (aka
the sun):
Our
very own star, Helios … the first stop in this trip down our neighbourhood.
The
snobby amongst us would likely covet Helios’ prestigious status: Helios
boasts 99.8% of the total mass of our solar system … and it shows! For sure,
there would be no effort applied in keeping up appearances with a postcode
the likes of this one at the bottom of every item of inward correspondence!
Furthermore, Helios’ status was given a colossal boost when Mikolaj Kopernik
(aka Nicolaus Copernicus) entered the astronomical fray in the 16th
Century. Prior to Kopernik, Helios revolved around us!!
I
know of at least one nuclear power plant owner who is so resentful of Helios
that his craving ambition is to destroy what he considers to be his greatest
enemy, which arrogantly still provides people with free light, heat, and
energy. “Since the beginning of time,” he told attendees at a Springfield
town meeting, “man has yearned to destroy the sun.” He went on to reveal
his bold plan to block out Helios. Well, he not so astonishingly failed in
those pursuits. Moreover, I can also happily report that inherent in his
statement is at least a subliminal acceptance of what we find in Mark 10:6,
viz that man has been around since the beginning, and did not arrive
on the scene some billions of years later. Go, man, go!
Helios
is easily eliminated by home-hunters. Could anyone endure the 5800 degrees
C surface temperature (still, that is better than the 15 600 000 degrees
C core temperature)? Assuming that hunters are wearing their rose-coloured
glasses and can see past that, they would doubtless be discouraged in
realising that they would find themselves to be one astronomical unit away
from mama and papa -- 149 600 000 km away. Oh, well. One compensating
factor of that distance is that you would not be visiting the in-laws on
every weekend! Hmmm.
It
may not be a nice place to live, or even to visit, but where would we all be
without Helios??
Hermes
(aka Mercury):
PHOTOGRAPH
CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE
Hermes’
temperature can be –170 degrees C at night and can be 400 degrees C in the
day. One day there is as 59 of our days, and one year there is as 88 of our
days (Hermes rotates three times every two of its years). Inhabitants there
would be overworked and overaged!
Hermes
has a very thin atmosphere and is heavily cratered.
Hermes
boasts of no plate tectonics (Hermes’ crust, unlike the earth’s, is not
divided into separate independently-floating-around-atop-the-hot-mantle
solid plates).
The
magnetic field strength on Hermes is approximately one per cent that of the
earth.
Hermes
has no known natural satellites (moons). Imagine, no romantic nights by the
light of the silvery moon!
Message
to Hermes: You will never be voted the most liveable planet … or even a
liveable planet!
Aphrodite (aka Venus):
Aphrodite
is considered to be the earth’s sister planet. Let us then see just how
liveable Aphrodite really is.
Other
than Helios, Aphrodite is probably the least hospitable place in our solar
system.
The
atmospheric pressure on Aphrodite’s surface is 90 atmospheres (roughly
equivalent to the pressure approximately one kilometre deep in one of the
earth’s oceans), and its atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide -- what we
exhale.
Aphrodite’s
clouds are of sulphuric acid and are many kilometres thick.
Aphrodite’s
surface temperature of 480 degrees C and its runaway greenhouse effect
(a greenhouse effect increase in
temperature occurs when entering solar radiation is passed but exiting
thermal radiation is blocked by the atmosphere, with carbon dioxide and
water vapour being the major contributing factors)
sound, to say the least, most miserable.
There
exists no water on Aphrodite. Has enough been said?
There
is more. Aphrodite has no magnetic field and has no known natural
satellites.
Forget
this ugly, unromantic place.
Ares
(aka Mars):
On
30 October 1938, radio actors playing out H G Wells’
The War of the Worlds caused
some alarm amongst townsfolk at Grovers Mill, USA. These folk feared a
Martian invasion, and so they reached for their guns. There was a lot of
unpleasantness. It is now all over … thankfully. NASA has carried out
extremely thorough
searches
for little green men. NASA biologists turned both Grovers Mill and Ares
upside down in their zeal and, to date, NASA has been totally unsuccessful
in locating any kind of life at all. The Arean landscape is devoid of all
life.
Ares has
a very thin atmosphere, only 0.15% of which is oxygen.
The
atmospheric pressure on Ares’ surface is under one per cent of that on the
earth.
Vast
and very windy Arean dust storms, with tornadoes reaching eight kilometres
high, engulf the entire planet for months on end … and are enough to keep me
away from there.
With
all of this talk of war, the comparatively peaceful thing to do would be to
stay at home. War is hell.
Hopefully
we shall never be evicted from the earth for not paying the rent, as the
other terrestrial (rocky) planets in our solar system are not at all
biofriendly. As we have just seen, none of them is liveable. Realistically,
the gas planets of Zeus (aka Jupiter), Kronos (aka Saturn), Ouranos (aka
Uranus), and Poseidon (aka Neptune) are also inhospitable. The lesser
planet of Haides (aka Pluto), too, is clearly unrealistic as a place to live.
Not to be outdone, each of the many satellites in our solar system poses its
own problems in this regard. I shall not dignify planet Xena, the possible
10th planet in our solar system, and likewise nor shall I dignify
its satellite Gabrielle, with any consideration at all.
So,
there you have it. The only place remotely liveable in this whole
neighbourhood -- in the ‘nearby’ places -- is home sweet home. Yes, indeed,
there is no place like home!!
Gaia
(aka the earth, aka our home):
PHOTOGRAPH
DEEMED UNNECESSARY. LOOK OUT A WINDOW!
As
we have seen, living on any other body in the solar system would be an
absence from home which could only make ones heart grow fonder of our Gaia!
Oh
our Gaia, how could anybody consider you to be just another planet??
71%
of our home’s surface is made-up of that colourless, transparent, odourless,
tasteless liquid compound of oxygen and hydrogen for which we all harbour
much more than merely an intense feeling of deep affection.
Water. Man can live for varying
lengths of time without access to a myriad of things, but he can only
survive for a comparatively short while without consuming water.
Our
home is the only planet in the solar system on which surface water can exist.
Our
oceans play a very important role in keeping our temperature relatively
stable. They also play a very important role in absorbing otherwise life-quenching
meteors! Likewise, our atmosphere burns up many a meteor whose ambition is
to graduate into a life-terminating meteorite! Apparently, nobody in the
last 1000 years is known to have died of a meteorite or of its effects, even
though Gaia has received many meteorites!
The
small amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere at any given moment is
vital in maintaining our surface temperature via the greenhouse effect. The
greenhouse effect prevents our oceans from freezing up, and so therefore it
allows for life as a going concern; without it, life would completely go
away. Our atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and water vapour -- the
major contributing factors to our greenhouse effect -- are just right: if
they were any higher, we would have a runaway greenhouse effect on our hands;
if they were any lower, we would have an insufficient greenhouse effect on
our hands.
Think
about this: Biological processes produce and maintain the oxygen in our
atmosphere (21% of our atmosphere is oxygen). In the absence of life, there
would exist no free oxygen!
Any
decent course in geomagnetism would teach even blind Freddy to see that Gaia
is a spherical magnet. This magnetic field of ours, in combination with our
atmosphere, protects us from being directly exposed to the ravages of solar
wind (thanks to Helios letting fly, we suffer this low density stream of
charged particles [mostly electrons and protons] cruising throughout the
solar system at a rate of approximately 450 km/s).
Our
romantic Selene (aka the moon) is Gaia’s only (‘known’ … remember Lilith?)
natural satellite. I doubt that Selene is disturbed by the notion of Gaia’s
affections extending as they do to thousands of artificial satellites.
Notwithstanding that, satellite manufacturers would doubtless scoff at any
of Selene’s hurt emotions with the quip, “Wide-ranging dominion is a
splendid thing!”
Selene
has no dark side; there is no boy in Selene
(although Selene is the site of
the only extraterrestrial walks man has ever taken, living there is
impossible … and I would question reports of anybody having been left behind
after a journey into space);
Selene is not made of cheese.
Tides
are gravitational forces between Gaia and Selene.
In
the minds of some, Selene is actually a terrestrial (rocky) planet!
Now,
take a gander at Selene …
Some
more biofriendliness facts:
If
gravity on Gaia’s surface were any weaker than what it is, our atmosphere
would lose too much of our beloved water for our liking; if it were any
stronger, our atmosphere would retain too many undesirables for our liking.
Gaia’s
distance from Helios is just right. If it were any greater, our stable
water cycle would go haywire; if it were any the lesser, our stable water
cycle would go haywire.
Gaia’s
axial tilt is just right. If it were any greater, the surface temperature
differences here would be more than we could endure; if it were any the
lesser, the surface temperature differences here would be more than we could
endure. That is not a typo.
Gaia’s
atmospheric ozone level is just right. If it were any higher, the surface
temperatures here would become too low for our liking; if it were any lower,
the surface temperatures here would become too high for our liking … and
Gaia’s surface would be blasted by ultraviolet radiation the likes of which
we may also dislike.
Some
of the hydrogen atom’s unique properties allow the water molecule a certain
interestingly unique property amongst the molecules, resulting in water
being lighter in its solid form than in its liquid form. That is why ice
floats. Consider what would happen if ice did not float. Granted, our lips
would not feel as ticklish every time that we were to knock back our
favourite soft drink, but there is even more to it than that! If ice did
not float, our oceans would freeze from the bottom up, and Gaia would, right
at this very moment, be covered in solid ice. Brrr!
Well,
that is the end of this inexhaustible list of facts and figures pertaining
to the anthropic principle.
So
many people ignore the obviousness of special creation. Some people ignore
it to the point of being rabid antitheists. The words spoken by the truth’s
detractors taste sweet to them, but they are ashes in their mouths. Truly,
even the most vehement of unbelievers will ultimately give glory to our
Creator -- even if it may be from the place of eternal separation from Him
(Philippians 2:10,11). May the Lord’s amazing grace and mercy abound for
His eternal glory and may these people join us as we rejoice in the good
news of 1 Corinthians 15:3,4! Hallelujah! Amen.
COPYRIGHT © 2005 JOHN THEOLOGIDIS
