“Response on the Anthropic Principle”
The Anthropic Principle, formally proposed at a conference in Poland by Brandon Carter in 1973, is a theory that strongly suggests that humanity holds a special place in the Universe. This topic has become widely discussed and debated topic among scientists. Two branches of the theory are the strong anthropic principle (SAP) and the weak anthropic principle (WAP). The SAP states, “The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history” (www.physics.sfsu.edu). This branch of the anthropic principle has commonly been used in the argument for intelligent design (ID), which puts forth the proposition that a designer is responsible for the balance of the laws of mathematics and physics that ultimately hold our universe together. The WAP says, “The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so” (www.physics.sfsu.edu). This is simply saying that if people were not here to observe and if the universe did not work as it does, then we could not ask why we are here and why the universe works like it does. Although the SAP and WAP are somewhat different, ultimately they both appear to agree that human life is special given all of the circumstances it takes for us to be able to survive.
The anthropic principle has created much controversy among scientists, and especially among students in the Heresy: Philosophy, Religion, & Science class. The main source of this discord is the notion put forth primarily by the science community that science and religion are incompatible. However, this has the appearance of a false dichotomy. Because the anthropic principle may imply a designer, it is often rejected as not true science. Further more, this may imply more about those who reject it than about the notion itself. For example, the theory of evolution fails the tests science places on itself. It is not observable because one would need to have been alive for billions of years to watch it. No one has set up an experiment to demonstrate it. This, in turn, means it also fails the concept of falsifiability, which is the same claim made against the anthropic principle. In short, evolution, often referred to as the unifying theme of all biology, technically can never truly be scientific theory. This does not discount it, nor does it prove that anthropic principle is true. Rather, it merely places it in a category of ideas that may or may not be true. In effect, it should hold no greater scientific position than the anthropic principle holds. Yet, many people fervently hold to a theory that cannot be demonstrated, but reject another theory that holds a similar amount of evidence all in the name of preventing the slightest possibility of a designer.
Is this because the notion of a designer would prevent scientific discovery, or is this because the notion of a designer is abhorrent to those who are afraid that this might open the door to the possibility of the influence of religion? To answer the first question, many of the greatest scientists prior to the 21st century had no problem combining a belief in a god with the advancement of science. In fact, Lord Kelvin, a leading mathematical physicist of his era, and for whom Kelvin units are named, once stated, “With regard to the origin of life, science… positively affirms creative power” (Muncaster 7).
If Sir Isaac Newton, generally considered the greatest scientist prior to the 20th century, had been sitting in the auditorium when Brandon Carter made his presentation, he would have most likely agreed with notions that Carter was putting forth. Newton stated, “Opposite to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors” (Newton 65). The fact that he would make this statement shows a difference between his views, and our 21st century perspective. The time period he and his fellow scientists lived in was one where science and religion did not cause turmoil between each other. Religion and science have not historically been in a constant “battle” to push one away from the other. Many of these men, especially Newton, believed it was their duty as scientists to make discoveries that would bring honor and glory to a designer, as well as help people see the incredible universe we are a part of. Science was not meant to bring conflict and doubt about whether or not there was a designer. An English natural philosopher, famous for inventing calculus, and for changing the structure of physical science with his laws of motion and universal gravitation, he would have concurred that the anthropic principle was obvious and true. He noted little details of life, such as the complexity of the human eye. How would the eye be so perfectly intact, rely on so many functions to work properly, all for the simple purpose of sight? He said further on the subject, which would agree with the anthropic principle: Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped… Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and suchlike considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a Being who made all things and has all things in his power, and is therefore to be feared…We are, therefore, to acknowledge one God, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, the Creator of all things, most wise, most just, most good, most holy” (Newton 66). It would seem that Newton would have approved of the strong anthropic principle.
However, had Galileo been sitting in the same auditorium in 1973, he would have also supported the anthropic principle. People commonly misperceive him as against God and the Bible because of his arrogance and constant battles with the church, when in fact, he was simply against the church for being hypocritical. During his trial for heresy on his heliocentric theory, he stated explicitly that the church misinterprets the Bible and was unfair to him on his theory when the church praised Copernicus. He argued: To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes…They pretend not to know that its author, or rather its restorer and confirmer, was Nicholas Copernicus; and that he was not only a Catholic, but a priest and a canon. He was in fact so esteemed by the church that when the Lateran Council under Leo X took up the correction of the church calendar, Copernicus was called to Rome from the most remote parts of Germany to undertake its reform…” (Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615). This is not a disbelief in God. If anything, it is quite the opposite. As he furthers his points, he makes comments that undoubtedly show he is not arguing against the Bible or God. Galileo wanted to be very clear that he was not condemning the Bible in any way. He was against the church for failing to understand or even read the Biblical text and accusing him of heresy, which he believed was unjust. He even points out that Copernicus’ argument for his heliocentric theory had nothing to do with religion or the Bible, and was based purely off of physical evidence that he had observed. In fact, he said, “I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood” (Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615). These passages further demonstrate that, for him, science and religion did not have an issue co-existing. Galileo believed that the problem was the church’s pride, the strict following of tradition, and that they interpreted the Bible incorrectly. He thought it was obvious that a designer was involved in the universe and that the Bible was not contradicted by the heliocentric theory. Thus, it seems logical that Galileo would have supported the anthropic principle and for him, it would not have caused a problem in his time. His answer to the theory may have been similar to Newton’s concepts. That is, that design is obvious in the universe, which would line up perfectly with the anthropic principle. He would have thought the universe being heliocentric was so fascinating and complex that it must have been intricately designed. For Galileo or Newton, this theory wouldn’t have been anything they would have disagreed with.
Even in the modern era, Charles Stine, with a Ph.D. in chemistry from John Hopkins, and a leading chemist of his day stated, “The world about us, far more intricate than any watch, filled with checks and balances of a hundred varieties, marvelous beyond even the imagination of the most skilled scientific investigator, this beautiful and intricate creation, bears the signature of its Creator, graven in its works” (Morris 84). Stine, who passed away in 1954, uses the term “creator” suggesting had he been present in 1973, he would have easily come down on the side of the SAP. Another example is Werner von Braun, credited as the “Father of Rocket Science.” He once wrote, “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science” (Muncaster 7). The term he used was “superior rationality” suggesting von Braun, who passed away in 1977, would have at the very least, supported the WAP and more likely the SAP. He is one of many others such as Bacon, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Mendel, Pasteur, and George Washington Carver, who did not find the notion of a designer a hindrance to science. In many ways, historians have created a revisionist history of science and religion. Do the beliefs all of these great scientist prove there was a designer? Not at all. Yet, these are men of great science and their views should not be lightly disregarded. Even the great mind of Stephen Hawking acknowledges that the anthropic principle has merit and must be addressed. He is quoted from his book The Nature of Space and Time: Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been less by one part on 10 to the 10th power, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10 to the 10th power, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find some physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is” (Hawking and Penrose 89). Although Hawking accepts that the universe came into being by an astronomically small chance, he is still willing to consider the possibility that there is more meaning to the universe than random chance. He leaves the door open to some kind of a designer as suggested by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is so quick to be disregarded, yet, scientists cannot explain why the universe is the way it is. Believing in a designer of some sort, which is a very common notion for those who agree with the theory, would explain why the universe’s properties and laws are so perfect for sustaining human life. Despite this, many still feel that this seems like an unscientific approach to answer the “why are we here” question. However, the theory of evolution is based on prima facie evidence just as is the anthropic principle. Great scientists throughout the ages have found no problem with the idea of a designer, which would have supported the anthropic principle. Overall, whether or not a scientist believes in the anthropic principle is irrelevant. What is important, is that for the time being, all possibilities should be considered, and given equal merit. Perhaps we will never know why the universe works so perfectly to sustain life for humans, but we know that it does, and is important that people continue to seek out the answers.

Works Cited
Galilei, Galileo. "Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615." Internet History Sourcebooks. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2014. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.asp>.
Hawking, S. W., and Roger Penrose. The Nature of Space and Time. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996. Print.
Morris, Henry M.. Men of science, men of God: great scientists who believed the Bible. San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982. Print.
Muncaster, Ralph O.. Creation vs. evolution. Eugene, Or: Harvest House, 2000. Print.
Newton, Isaac. Newton's Philosophy of Nature: selections from his writings. New York: Hafner Pub. Co., 1953. Print.
"The Anthropic Principle." The Anthropic Principle. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Mar. 2014. <http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html.>