Continuing from part #1 with the 1957 address of late cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle,
[Above: Triple-Alpha Process ... by which three helium nuclei (alpha particles) are transformed into carbon, Wikipedia]
at University Church, Cambridge, on the topic of "Religion and the Scientists."
Hoyle, whose specialty at the time was stellar nucleosynthesis (for which he should have at least shared a Nobel prize) pointed out that "all atoms have been built from one atom. ... the stars serve as gigantic factories in which a whole array of atoms are produced from the simplest atom of all, hydrogen":
"Science operates in accordance with a set of laws, as I have said already. The laws describe the behaviour of matter, so that, in addition to the laws, matter must exist for the laws to operate on. According to the science of the last century matter consists of indestructible atoms of which there are 90 odd different varieties. According to the science of the present century the atoms possess an internal structure made up from a weighty central nucleus of very small size surrounded by a comparatively extensive cloud of light weight particles known as electrons. According to the science of the last twenty-five years the weighty central nucleus itself possesses a structure. It is built out of two kinds of heavy particle, protons and neutrons. The precise number of protons and neutrons contained by the nucleus determines the nature of the atom. When the nucleus contains 6 protons and 6 neutrons we have an atom of common carbon. When the nucleus contains 26 protons and 30 neutrons we have an atom of common iron. When the nucleus contains 82 protons and 126 neutrons we have an atom of common lead. And so on for the other 90 odd cases. We know today that the science of the nineteenth century was mistaken in supposing that atoms are indestructible. The compositions of the nuclei of atoms can be altered, and one atom can be changed to another. This leads to an important question. Have the atoms we find in the world always existed in their present forms, or have some atoms been made. from others? The second of these possibilities has turned out to be correct. Already in 1920, Eddington had been led to suspect that all atoms have been built from one atom, the simplest of all, the atom of hydrogen. He was led, moreover, to suspect that it is in the interiors of the stars that this building from hydrogen takes place. The work of the last few years has provided almost overwhelming evidence in favour of this guess of Eddington's. It has turned out that the stars serve as gigantic factories in which a whole array of atoms are produced from the simplest atom of all, hydrogen." (Hoyle, F., in Stockwood, M., ed., "Religion and the Scientists: Addresses Delivered in the University Church, Cambridge," Lent Term, 1957, SCM Press: London, 1959, p.62).
Hoyle's next point was that "although the laws of science admit of complex atoms, their existence would never have been realised" (in the sense of given reality to) "but for the stars," so "a connexion between the existence of stars and the laws of nuclear physics is clearly implied":
"The really interesting point is that although the laws of science admit of complex atoms, their existence would never have been realised but for the stars. There is a delicate inflexion here. Let us assume that the universe possesses logical coherence. Would it really be sensible then for the laws of science to admit of complex atoms if their existence were never realised? If we consider it would not be sensible, and this seems to me the evident answer we should give, a most unusual connexion between the existence of stars and the laws that govern the atomic nuclei is implied. Notice that I say the existence of stars, not the properties of stars. Everyone expects the properties of stars and atomic nuclei to be related. It is the connexion with the existence of stars that is so surprising. Let us push a little further into this deep water. Are there any stable complex atoms permitted by the laws of science whose existence is not realised in the stars? The answer is that there are none. They are all produced in the stars, not in equal abundance it is true, but the existence of every single one is established. Either we are here confronted by a monstrous situation in which the existence of a multitude of complex atoms is only established as a consequence of scores of separate accidents, or a connexion between the existence of stars and the laws of nuclear physics is clearly implied." (Hoyle, Ibid., p.63. Emphasis original).
But of this "genesis of the complex atoms" only "about half the complex nuclei does follow from the broad principles of nuclear physics, but the other half does not." The genesis of the latter half "depends on the oddest array of apparently random quirks you could possibly imagine" as if we should "find Government policy depending in a really crucial way on the fact that the Prime Minister possesses a moustache while the Foreign Secretary does not" and "on the Minister of Works possessing a mole beneath his left ear" (my emphasis):
"What do I mean ... by `scores of accidents'? Granted stars to exist, surely there can be no accidents. Surely all the properties of stars, including the genesis of the complex atoms, then follow implacably from the broad principles of nuclear physics? I disagree. It is true that the genesis of about half the complex nuclei does follow from the broad principles of nuclear physics, but the other half does not. Their genesis depends on the oddest array of apparently random quirks you could possibly imagine. I will try to explain what I mean in terms of an analogy, which I hope you will not think too flippant. We would all agree that the actions of the Government depend on the persons who comprise it-on their education, intelligence, social and cultural background, and on their state of health. These qualities correspond to my broad principles. But we would scarcely expect to find Government policy depending in a really crucial way on the fact that the Prime Minister possesses a moustache while the Foreign Secretary does not. These are my random quirks. And if we should find that Government policy depended in a really vital respect on the Minister of Works possessing a mole beneath his left ear, then manifestly we should be justified in supposing that new and hitherto unsuspected connexions existed within the field of political affairs..." (Hoyle, Ibid., pp.63-64).
And yet, Hoyle affirms, "this is just the case for the building of many complex atoms inside stars," for example, "The building of carbon depends on a moustache, the building of oxygen on a mole, and if you prefer a less well known case, the building of the atom dysprosium depends on a slight scar over the right eye":
"Yet this is just the case for the building of many complex atoms inside stars. The building of carbon depends on a moustache, the building of oxygen on a mole, and if you prefer a less well known case, the building of the atom dysprosium depends on a slight scar over the right eye. If this were a purely scientific question and not one that touched on the religious problem, I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks become part of a deep laid scheme. If not, then we are back again to a monstrous sequence of accidents." (Hoyle, Ibid., p.64).
Here are some more quotes from others on this. Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg singles out this stepwise synthesis of carbon and oxygen from helium via beryllium among the "mysteries" which "are heightened when we reflect how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it ... If the energy of the excited state of carbon 12 were just a little higher, the rate of its formation would be much less, so that almost all the beryllium 8 nuclei would fission into helium nuclei before carbon could be formed" (my emphasis):
"These mysteries are heightened when we reflect how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values. The best known of these quantities is the energy of one of the excited states of the carbon 12 nucleus. There is an essential step in the chain of nuclear reactions that build up heavy elements in stars. In this step, two helium nuclei join together to form the unstable nucleus of beryllium 8, which sometimes before fissioning absorbs another helium nucleus, forming carbon 12 in this excited state. The carbon 12 nucleus then emits a photon and decays into the stable state of lowest energy. In subsequent nuclear reactions carbon is built up into oxygen and nitrogen and the other heavy elements necessary for life. But the capture of helium by beryllium 8 is a resonant process, whose reaction rate is a sharply peaked function of the energies of the nuclei involved. If the energy of the excited state of carbon 12 were just a little higher, the rate of its formation would be much less, so that almost all the beryllium 8 nuclei would fission into helium nuclei before carbon could be formed. The universe would then consist almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, without the ingredients for life." (Weinberg, S., "Life in the Universe," Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 4, October 1994, Special Issue, pp.22-27, p.27).
In the same special issue of Scientific American , Harvard astronomer Robert P. Kirshner, also singles this reaction out as, "Amazingly ... The process would seem about as likely as crossing a stream by stepping fleetingly on a log. A delicate match between the energies of helium, the unstable beryllium and the resulting carbon allows the last to be created. Without this process, we would not be here (my emphasis):
"But interesting events take place inside red giants. As the core contracts, the central furnace grows denser and hotter. Then nuclear reactions that were previously impossible become the principal source of energy. For example, the helium that accumulates during hydrogen burning can now become a fuel. As the star ages and the core temperature rises, brief encounters between helium nuclei produce fusion events. The collision of two helium nuclei leads initially to an evanescent form of beryllium having four neutrons and four protons. Amazingly enough, another helium nucleus collides with this short-lived target, leading to the formation of carbon. The process would seem about as likely as crossing a stream by stepping fleetingly on a log. A delicate match between the energies of helium, the unstable beryllium and the resulting carbon allows the last to be created. Without this process, we would not be here." (Kirshner, R.P., "The Earth's Elements," Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 4, October 1994, Special Issue, pp.37-43, pp.38-39).
But as physicist Paul Davies pointed out, "This is, however, only half the story, for it is necessary that the newly synthesized carbon survive the subsequent nuclear activity inside the star. Carbon will be depleted" by "the further collision of a helium nucleus with C12" which "produces oxygen, O16" but another "resonance in the O16 nucleus lies safely below the thermal energy of the constituents, so the C12 is spared the fate of being burned out of existence to form oxygen":
"The central role of the element carbon in terrestrial life prompted Fred Hoyle to draw attention to a further curious accident of nature. Carbon nuclei are synthesized in stars as a result of the almost simultaneous encounter of three helium nuclei. Such a triple collision is, of course, rather rare, and would be utterly insignificant if it were not for a fortuitous property of the carbon nucleus. The union of two helium nuclei forms an unstable nucleus of beryllium, Be8. The probability of the further incorporation of a third helium nucleus, to form carbon (C12), before the decay of Be8, depends sensitively on the energy with which the helium nucleus strikes the temporarily existing Be8. The reason for this concerns the existence of so-called nuclear resonances. Roughly speaking, when the frequency of the quantum wave associated with the incoming helium nucleus matches an internal vibration frequency of the composite system, the nuclear cross-section for capture of the third helium nucleus rises very sharply. By chance, the thermal energy of the nuclear constituents in a typical star lies almost exactly at the location of a resonance in C12. This happy accident ensures the efficient production of carbon inside stars. Without it, the rate of carbon formation would be very much reduced. This is, however, only half the story, for it is necessary that the newly synthesized carbon survive the subsequent nuclear activity inside the star. Carbon will be depleted as it burns to form still heavier elements. Specifically, the further collision of a helium nucleus with C12 produces oxygen, O16. Once more, though, nature has made a fortunate choice. A resonance in the O16 nucleus lies safely below the thermal energy of the constituents, so the C12 is spared the fate of being burned out of existence to form oxygen. The details of nuclear structure are immensely complicated, but ultimately the location of the nuclear resonances depends upon the fundamental forces of nature, especially the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. Had the strengths of these forces not been rather precisely chosen, the fortuitous arrangement of resonances in C12 and O16 would not have occurred and life, at least of the terrestrial variety, would have been exceedingly less likely. " (Davies, P.C.W., "The Accidental Universe," [1982], Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, Reprinted, 1983, pp.117-118).
A half-century ago, Hoyle had "advance[d] the hypothesis that the laws of science have been designed to promote the origin of life"and predicted that if that were true, "We would expect that as biochemists and biophysicists discover more ... of the detailed properties of living matter" that "more ... apparent accidents without which life would not be possible" would be found, "that only make sense on the basis of deliberate design" (my emphasis):
"Let us see if we can put these ideas on a more scientific and less emotional basis. You will remember that any hypothesis whatsoever can be made in science so long as it possesses consequences that are subject to observational test. Let us advance the hypothesis that the laws of science have been designed to promote the origin of life, and let us see if any predictions can be made. Firstly, the random quirks. We would expect that as biochemists and biophysicists discover more and more of the detailed properties of living matter more and more random quirks will be found-apparent accidents without which life would not be possible, apparent accidents that only make sense on the basis of deliberate design: Other predictions in very different directions can be made. Life demands highly special physical conditions if it is to flourish. Hence if life is part of a deliberate plan so must the origin of the physical conditions be. This conclusion contradicts older astronomical ideas, which held to the view that the origin of the earth and planets arose from a sheer fluke. The question therefore arises as to which astronomical theory fits the observed situation. At the present moment the balance of evidence has swung against the older views." (Hoyle, Ibid., p.65)
Hoyle's prediction has been abundantly confirmed! Here are some more quotes by other non-theist scientists, who admit that they recognise this series of coincidences as evidence for design (even though they personally don't accept it on materialistic-naturalistic philosophical grounds).
Physicist Richard Morris observed, "It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed in such a way that life would be inevitable" (my emphasis):
"How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed in such a way that life would be inevitable." (Morris, R., "The Fate of the Universe," Playboy Press: New York NY, 1982, p.155).
Astrophysicists John Gribbin and Martin Rees concede of "This combination of coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12, just wrong in oxygen-16" that "There is no better evidence to support the argument that the Universe has been designed for our benefit-tailor-made for man" (my emphasis):
"This combination of coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12, just wrong in oxygen-16, is indeed remarkable. There is no better evidence to support the argument that the Universe has been designed for our benefit-tailor-made for man." (Gribbin, J.R. & Rees, M.J., "Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology," Bantam Books: New York NY, 1989, p.247).
Astronomer Marcus Chown admits that "This fine-tuning" of "the nuclei of beryllium-8, carbon-12 and oxygen-16" such that "hydrogen be built up into the elements of life" has only "two possible explanations" with one of those being that "the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator" (my emphasis):
"But the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely tuned for our existence. In the 1950s, for instance, Fred Hoyle discovered that the step-by-step build-up of heavy elements inside stars depends on a series of spectacular coincidences. Only if the nuclei of beryllium-8, carbon-12 and oxygen-16 exist in particular energy states can hydrogen be built up into the elements of life such as calcium, magnesium and iron. This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes - a `multiverse'." (Chown, M., "Anything Goes," New Scientist, 6 June 1998, Vol. 158, pp.26-30, p.28).
Concluded in part #3.
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
Exodus 13:21-22. 21By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. 22Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment