How science leads to an intelligent designer
From Italy to the universe
One of my favorite countries is Italy. The breathtaking Italian landscapes have captured my heart. While swimming in Lake Garda and looking around at the surrounding mountains, I could not help but conclude that Italy has a perfect design. But not only Italy, our entire universe shows this sense of perfect design.
And since design requires a designer, I have come to the conclusion that the universe has a designer. With the help of the fine-tuning argument, I will defend this claim.
What is fine-tuning?
Fine-tuning means that the initial conditions in which natural laws operate, and the natural constants embedded in them, fall within an extremely narrow life-permitting range that makes our universe habitable. If these laws, constants, or conditions had been even slightly different, our universe would not have been life-permitting. This is what is called the fine-tuning of the universe.¹
Laws of nature: such as the theory of relativity (E = mc²).
Constants of nature: unchanging values that appear in those laws, such as the speed of light c.
Initial conditions: arbitrary quantities the universe started out with, such as the level of entropy.
Natural laws and natural constants
Our universe is governed by natural laws, such as the well-known theory of relativity E=mc²
These laws contain natural constants, for example in E=mc² the C is the speed of light in vacuum is a natural constant. These constants are fixed values, determined by the universe in which they exist. Natural laws function within certain initial conditions, sometimes called “arbitrary quantities.” An example of this is the entropy (thermodynamic disorder) of the early universe.¹
Examples of fine-tuning ²
Cosmological constant= is a number that controls how fast the universe expands
If it deviated by as little as 1 part in 10^120, the universe would not permit the formation of stars, galaxies, or intelligent life. If the cosmological constant were too large, the universe would expand too quickly for galaxies and stars to form. If it were too small or negative, gravity would cause the universe to collapse back in on itself.
Big Bang expansion: How quickly the universe grew right after it began.
If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. - An accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.
Gravity: The pulling force that holds planets, stars, and galaxies together.
According to physicist Brandon Carter, if the strength of gravity were altered by just 1 part in 10^40, stars like our Sun could not form. Stars like the Sun are essential for life because they provide stable, long-term energy through nuclear fusion, creating the conditions for planetary systems to sustain life.
Neutron-proton mass ratio: The tiny weight difference between neutrons and protons that makes stable atoms possible, which in turn make molecules possible.
If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons, or all neutrons into protons—making molecules and thus life impossible.
The scale of these numbers is so vast that our brains can hardly grasp it. In comparison, winning the lottery is virtually guaranteed.
The fine-tuning argument in logical form ¹
P1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. P2. Fine-tuning cannot be explained by physical necessity or chance.
C. Therefore, the best explanation is design.
Step 1: Physical necessity Some argue that the universe must be life-permitting—that the constants and conditions necessarily have the values they do. But there is no evidence for this. On the contrary, all the evidence shows that these values fall within an extremely small life-permitting range, and that the slightest variation would make the universe uninhabitable.
Step 2: Chance
Could fine-tuning simply be due to chance? The odds are so unimaginably small that this explanation collapses under its own improbability. Some compare it to winning the lottery. Yes, the lottery is unlikely, but someone eventually wins. But here’s the difference: in a normal lottery, someone must win. In the case of the universe, there did not need to be a life-permitting universe at all. The real question is not why this universe is life-permitting, but why any life-permitting universe exists at all.
To illustrate, let me use an example from football. Two years ago, Cristiano Ronaldo’s son tragically passed away while Ronaldo was playing for Manchester United. In a match against Liverpool, in the 7th minute, Liverpool fans began singing “You’ll Never Walk Alone.” Was this pure coincidence, or was it an intentional, coordinated act? Of course, it was deliberate. If something so small is clearly not by chance, how much less likely is it that the fine-tuning of the universe is by chance?
Thus, we conclude: fine-tuning cannot be explained by necessity or chance. The most reasonable conclusion is design.
The anthropic principle
Some respond with the anthropic principle: “We should not be surprised that the universe is life-permitting, because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to notice it.”
But consider this: imagine you are sentenced to death and one hundred sharpshooters fire at you simultaneously. You hear the shots… but you’re still alive. Would you conclude, “I shouldn’t be surprised, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to notice it”? Or would you conclude that they must have missed on purpose?¹
The mere fact that we observe a life-permitting universe does not remove the need to ask why such a universe exists.
Final reflection
John Lennox offers this thought experiment: our brain is like a computer. Now imagine your computer is the result of blind, unguided processes. Would you trust it?
Even Charles Darwin admitted:
"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy." ³
If our reasoning is to be trusted, then it points not to blind chance, but to a trustworthy source: an intelligent Designer.
Notes:
(1) Craig, W. L. (2010). On guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. David C Cook.
(2) Collins, R. (2024, 15 oktober). The Fine-Tuning Design Argument. Discovery Institute. https://www.discovery.org/a/91/
(3) Powell, L. Z. (2020, 20 januari). Science and Atheism Don’t Mix — An Affair with Reason. An Affair With Reason. https://laurazpowell.org/blog//2019/05/science-and-atheism-dont-mix.html