Go to Google and search the “probability of man’s existence” and there you will find several articles pointing to what is called the “fine-tuning argument” of the earth (usually a Christian view). You will also find several articles pointing to the “mathematical constants” that we observe in our universe (usually an evolutionary view). Both of these views claim that empirical evidence favors their prospective theory.
The Christian view highlights the incredible fine-tuning of the universe as evidence that the earth was created. They say things like, “if the earth spun this much slower, or was angled slightly different, or was a little bit closer or farther from the sun, we would all be dead.” The Evolutionary view claims the opposite with the same information saying things like, “the earth spins the speed it spins and is on the angle that it is on because that is how the planets and gravitational forces evolved over trillions of years, no philosophical truth can be drawn from these facts.” To both, the current conditions of our world are reasonable enough grounds to believe their prospective views.
If both groups believe that everything that can be observed scientifically only goes to further support their own worldview what are we to do? Should we write off those we disagree with? Should we lose our voices showing our counterparts how wrong we think they are and how right we think we are? What is the destiny of such relationships or cultures? Should we just eat, drink, and be merry together for tomorrow we both die?
While one view cannot imagine life without a God, one cannot imagine life with a God. One may come with the bias of a creator and the other with the bias of no creator. It seems what is most effective in this instance is to focus on the implications that our views have on life, not for convincing, but to test based upon their rational implications for life. So what are the implications of a life with no God, where we have all evolved from lesser animals? And, what are the implications of a life with, let’s say, the God of the Bible?
Atheist and author John Gray writes, “Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth and so be free. But if Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.”
Gray’s claim, that the logical conclusion of evolution is that humankind cannot know the truth, reveals the irony of the implications of evolution. How can he know that his own statement is true? With no truth comes no grounds for disagreement or agreement, or for arguing a better way. In fact, in this worldview there is no “better” way, there are only “ways.” Therefore, the humanistic evolutionary worldview is dependent on a mind that cannot claim truth at all, it can only observe what is, but draw no conclusions about any meaning in what it observes.
On the other side of the table stands the Christian view that claims the existence of a God. The Bible speaks of three ways that God has revealed himself to mankind, 1) Creation, 2) Moral Conscience, and 3) The Word of God. Through creation we can see God’s divinity, and his eternal power, and we perceive these things via our own intuition. The reason the “fine-tuning” theory exists is a result of intuition.
Also, through our moral conscience we believe that there is such a thing as love, and to be “unloving” is wrong and to be “loving” is right. And finally, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. In the Bible we may not find all the answers to our suffering and questions, but we do meet a man who enters our suffering, who lived a public life and died a public death and appeared to hundreds after he had died as a man who rose from the dead.
Everyone agrees that the earth is fine-tuned to support life. Some believe it was by a designer, others believe it was by chance, regardless of your belief, what are the implications of what you believe and do those implications rationally align with your experiences in life thus far?