Creationists are always on the lookout for anything in science that can be misrepresented as evidence that the Universe must have been designed, preferably by whichever locally popular god they have already decided exists. So it will not be surprising if they seize on a paper in Science Advances, as though it proves their case.
It does nothing of the sort, of course. In fact, properly understood, it does something much more interesting — and potentially much more damaging to the simplistic creationist claim that “fine-tuning” must mean “fine-tuned by an intelligent designer”.
The paper, by Professor Kostya Trachenko of Queen Mary University of London, concerns the way fundamental physical constants constrain the viscosity and diffusion properties of liquids. In plain English, it asks why liquids such as water are fluid enough for molecules to move around in them at rates compatible with cellular life. Life is not just a matter of having carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other useful atoms available. It also requires those atoms and molecules to move, interact, react and be transported inside and between cells. That means the physical properties of liquids are not incidental details; they are part of the basic physical background without which living cells could not function.
In 2020, Trachenko and colleagues showed that there is a fundamental lower limit to liquid viscosity — in other words, to how runny a liquid can be. This later paper takes that insight into biology and asks how changes in fundamental constants would affect the viscosity and diffusion rates needed for living processes. The conclusion is that there appears to be a “bio-friendly” window within which fundamental constants must fall if liquids are to have the right properties for life as we know it.
The Anthropic Principle. The anthropic principle is the simple observation that we can only find ourselves in a universe capable of producing observers like us.Cue the creationist cry of triumph: “Fine-tuning! Therefore design!”
That might sound obvious, but it is an important safeguard against a common mistake in arguments about “fine-tuning”. We observe that the Universe has physical constants compatible with stars, stable atoms, chemistry, planets, liquids and, eventually, living organisms capable of asking questions about the Universe. Creationists then leap from that observation to the claim that the Universe must have been designed for us.
But that conclusion does not follow.
If the Universe had physical constants that made atoms unstable, prevented stars from forming, produced no heavy elements, or made liquids unsuitable for cellular processes, there would be no living observers in that universe to wonder why life was impossible. Sterile universes, by definition, contain no scientists, philosophers, theologians, bloggers or creationists to comment on their sterility.
So the fact that we observe a life-permitting universe is not surprising in the way creationists suggest. Any observer will necessarily observe conditions compatible with the existence of observers. This is not proof that the Universe was designed; it is a selection effect.
The anthropic principle does not explain why the constants have the values they do. Nor does it prove that there are many universes, although it is often discussed in that context. What it does is remove the false sense of improbability from the design argument. It reminds us that we are not looking at the Universe from the outside, as neutral inspectors comparing all possible universes. We are products of this Universe, observing it from within, and only a universe compatible with our existence could ever be observed by us.
Creationist “fine-tuning” arguments usually confuse two very different statements:
- The Universe has properties that make our existence possible.
- The Universe was intentionally designed in order to produce us.
The first is an observation. The second is an unsupported theological claim.
This is why the anthropic principle undermines the design argument. It shows that “the Universe is compatible with our existence” does not mean “the Universe was made for our existence”. Fish find themselves in water because only aquatic environments can support fish; that does not mean rivers were intelligently designed with fish in mind. Likewise, intelligent beings find themselves in a universe whose physics permits intelligent beings; that does not mean the Universe was designed for them.
In the context of Trachenko’s paper, the point is especially relevant. If liquid viscosity, diffusion, chemistry and cellular function depend on particular ranges of physical constants, then intelligent observers like us could only evolve in a universe where those conditions are met. That is not evidence of design. It is exactly what we should expect if observers can only arise where physics allows observers to arise.
But that is not a conclusion from the science. It is a theological add-on. The paper does not show that the constants were chosen, still less that they were chosen by an intelligent designer. It identifies a physical constraint: in a universe where constants differed significantly, liquids might not have the viscosity and diffusion properties needed for cellular life. That is an important scientific observation, but it is not evidence of magic, purpose, foresight, or supernatural engineering.
More importantly, the paper does not leave the question sitting conveniently where creationists want it. It raises the possibility that the apparent tuning itself may have arisen through a natural, evolutionary-like process. In other words, the conditions which later made biological evolution possible may themselves have been produced by a deeper process of natural selection operating at the level of physical structures, constants, or possible universes.
That is a profoundly awkward possibility for creationists. Their argument depends on smuggling intention into the word “tuning”. They want “fine-tuning” to mean that someone, somewhere, adjusted the dials. But the paper points in a very different direction: apparent tuning may be the outcome of nature arriving at sustainable physical arrangements. Not design. Not foresight. Not a cosmic engineer setting the Universe up for humans. Selection.
The analogy with biological evolution is obvious. No intelligent designer is needed to explain why organisms are well adapted to their environments. Natural selection explains how viable forms persist while non-viable forms disappear. Traits that work can accumulate; arrangements that fail are removed from the population. Trachenko’s conjecture suggests that something broadly analogous may apply at a far deeper level: that the life-permitting properties of our Universe may be the surviving result of a wider natural process in which only sustainable physical structures persist.
If that is right, then the creationist argument is exactly backwards. The physical conditions for life were not necessarily imposed from outside nature by an intelligent agent. They may be part of nature’s own history. Before biological evolution could shape organisms, a prior selection-like process may have shaped the physical possibility-space in which organisms could later evolve.
That does not mean the conjecture has been proved. Science does not work by turning interesting possibilities into dogmas. The point is more modest, but also more devastating for creationism: the very paper creationists may try to use as evidence for design explicitly raises a natural alternative to design. It suggests that what looks like “fine-tuning” may itself be explicable by evolutionary principles. The designer is not discovered by the science; the designer is made unnecessary by the science.
This is where the anthropic principle also becomes relevant. We can only discuss the question in a universe in which intelligent organisms capable of discussing it have evolved. We should not be surprised to find ourselves in a universe compatible with our existence, because if it were not compatible with our existence, we would not be here to notice. A universe in which liquids were all as viscous as tar, in which atoms could not form stable chemistry, or in which stars could not manufacture heavy elements, would contain no physicists, no biologists, no bloggers and no creationists wrongly claiming victory.
The fact that our Universe permits life is therefore not, by itself, evidence that the Universe was designed for life. It is a selection effect. Observers will only ever observe a universe in which observers are possible.
The creationist mistake is to treat “necessary for our existence” as though it means “intended for our existence”. But those are very different claims. Oxygen is necessary for human life, but that does not mean oxygen atoms were designed with humans in mind. The Sun is necessary for life on Earth, but it was not designed as a human warming lamp. Water’s viscosity is essential for cellular processes, but that does not mean it was specially adjusted by a cosmic engineer. It means that organisms like us can only evolve in a universe where the chemistry and physics permit organisms like us to evolve.
There is also a deeper problem for the intelligent design claim. If an omnipotent designer were responsible, why would life be constrained by such a precarious cascade of physical dependencies at all? Why should life require constants that allow stars to form heavy elements, planets to form stable environments, atoms to form useful chemistry, liquids to diffuse molecules at workable rates, and cells to operate within narrow physical limits? That is exactly what we would expect in a natural universe where life is an emergent consequence of permissive physical conditions. It is not what we would expect from an unconstrained designer who could presumably create life by any means it wished.
Far from proving intelligent design, the research emphasises how deeply life is embedded in physics. Living organisms are not exceptions to the laws of nature; they are products of those laws. Cellular life depends on molecular motion, diffusion, viscosity, energy gradients and chemistry. Those processes can be investigated, measured, modelled and tested. That is science. “God must have done it” explains none of them.
In fact, the paper is cautious in exactly the way science should be. It does not pretend to have solved the origin of the fundamental constants. It does not claim to have proved why the Universe has the values it has. It identifies a new area in which physics and biology meet: the possibility that the constants of nature constrain the physical properties of liquids in ways that affect whether cellular life can exist. It then raises the possibility that the apparent “tuning” of those constants may itself have a natural, evolutionary explanation.
That is a much more powerful idea than the creationist alternative. Creationism simply stops at “God did it” and mistakes that intellectual full stop for an explanation. Science asks whether the apparent fitness of the Universe for life can itself be explained by deeper principles of physics, selection, constraint and persistence.
Creationists will probably call this “fine-tuning”, but even that phrase can mislead. “Fine-tuned” implies a tuner. The evidence shows compatibility, not intent. It shows that, given the constants of this Universe, liquid-based cellular life is physically possible. It does not show that the Universe was made for humans, still less that it was made by the god of a Bronze Age Middle Eastern creation myth.
Professor Kostya Trachenko's research and its significance for understanding the universe is explained in a news release from Queen Mary University:
How a cup of water can unlock the secrets of our Universe
Researchers from Queen Mary University of London have made a discovery that could change our understanding of the universe. In their study published in Science Advances, they reveal, for the first time, that there is a range in which fundamental constants can vary, allowing for the viscosity needed for life processes to occur within and between living cells. This is an important piece of the puzzle in determining where these constants come from and how they impact life as we know it.
In 2020, the same team found that the viscosity of liquids is determined by fundamental physical constants, setting a limit on how runny a liquid can be. Now this result is taken into the realm of life sciences.
Fundamental physical constants shape the fabric of the universe we live in. Physical constants are quantities with a value that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and to remain unchanged over time – for example the mass of the electron. They govern nuclear reactions and can lead to the formation of molecular structures essential to life, but their origin is unknown. This research might bring scientists one step closer to determining where these constants come from.
Understanding how water flows in a cup turns out to be closely related to the grand challenge to figure out fundamental constants. Life processes in and between living cells require motion and it is viscosity that sets the properties of this motion. If fundamental constants change, viscosity would change too impacting life as we know it. For example, if water was as viscous as tar life would not exist in its current form or not exist at all. This applies beyond water, so all life forms using the liquid state to function would be affected.
Any change in fundamental constants including an increase or decrease would be equally bad news for flow and for liquid-based life. We expect the window to be quite narrow: for example, viscosity of our blood would become too thick or too thin for body functioning with only a few per cent change of some fundamental constants such as the Planck constant or electron charge.
Professor Kostya Trachenko, author.
School of Physical and Chemical Sciences
Queen Mary University of London
London, UK.
Surprisingly, the fundamental constants were thought to be tuned billions of years ago to produce heavy nuclei in stars and back then life as we know it today didn’t exist. There was no need for these constants to be fine-tuned at that point to also enable cellular life billions of years later, and yet these constants turn out to be bio-friendly to flow in and between living cells.
An accompanying conjecture is that multiple tunings may have been involved and this then suggests a similarity to biological evolution where traits were acquired independently. Through evolutionary mechanisms, fundamental constants may be the result of nature arriving at sustainable physical structures. It remains to be seen how the principles of evolution can be helpful to understand the origin of fundamental constants.
Publication:
This is the familiar creationist sleight of hand: find a scientific explanation for why life is possible, then pretend the explanation is evidence that science has failed. But the opposite is true. The research takes something as ordinary as water in a cup and connects it to some of the deepest questions in physics. It shows that even the mundane flow of a liquid can illuminate the conditions under which life can exist.
That is not a retreat from natural explanation. It is an expansion of it.
The Universe may or may not be one of many possible universes; the constants of nature may or may not have deeper explanations still to be discovered. But invoking an invisible designer explains nothing. It simply relabels the unknown as divine intention and then pretends the problem has been solved.
Science does something better. It asks what physical conditions are necessary for life, how those conditions arise, and what would happen if they were different. In this case, the answer may involve something as apparently simple as the viscosity of water and the diffusion of molecules inside cells. It may also involve something much grander: the possibility that what creationists call fine-tuning was itself produced by natural evolutionary processes long before the first living cell existed.
So, when creationists inevitably claim that this research proves intelligent design, the answer is simple: no, it doesn’t. It shows that life can only arise in a universe whose physical constants permit the chemistry and fluid dynamics life requires. And it raises the possibility that those life-permitting constants themselves may be the result of natural selection-like processes, not supernatural choice.
Once again, science has not found evidence for creationism. It has found another reason creationism is unnecessary.
Advertisement
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.