In a recent article at IAI News, technological physicist Jeff Shainline proposes a preposterous new theory that attempts to “resolve” anthropic fine-tuning by rolling it together with cosmological Darwinism and a twist of The Privileged Planet gone universal. Shainline piggybacks his extended theory on an earlier stretch-of-the-imagination proposal by cosmologist Lee Smolin,
Lee Smolin’s proposal [suggests] that universes reproduce through black holes and, like organisms, evolve across cosmic generations towards fecundity.
Even though the progress of scientific research into the bewilderingly complex biochemical marvels of living things has undercut any plausibility of evolutionary natural selection as the source of life, the hopeful appeal to evolution lingers like a bad virus, infecting even cosmology.
The preposterous nature of Shainline’s theory stems from attempting to gain traction for the sci-fi notion of evolving universes by hitching it to Darwinism. The beleaguered appeal of Darwinism is summarized in an interview with biochemist Michael Behe, highlighting the ideological focus and dim future of Darwinism.
Behe says Darwinism persists because it’s an ideology supported by people who want it to be true for reasons other than science. But history shows us that a failed idea can’t stay propped up indefinitely.
An All-Too-Typical Reason
Shainline’s primary objection to theistic design as an explanation for anthropic fine-tuning also seems to arise from personal preference. He describes his all-too-typical reason for objecting to intelligent design as an explanation for fine-tuning, one that ultimately seems to prefer a life apart from God.
To many, none of these explanations is satisfactory, since they involve profoundly improbable chance, or lack clarity as to why intelligence is required, or invoke a deity controlling nature from outside.
Appealing to a semi-sentient universal urge to evolve, Shainline prefers to understand a universe finely tuned for advanced life by relegating humans to a byproduct of the cosmic reproductive process. In one point to his credit, however, Shainline acknowledges that the fine-tuning of the universe extends not just to the conditions necessary for life, but to conditions favorable to technological developments by human-level intelligence.
To me, they also miss an important piece of the fine-tuning picture: fine-tuning doesn’t appear to be limited to life; the parameters of the universe also appear to be tuned to support advanced technologies….The fundamental physical properties of silicon are improbably aligned to allow transistors with supreme performance for computing. The properties of superconducting materials such as niobium and the cooling properties of helium are uncannily capable of supporting extraordinary feats of device physics.
This aspect of fine-tuning has been investigated previously by ID researchers, as reported by physicist Brian Miller, who speaks about the “convergence of design parameters that come together to pave the way for human technological advancement.”
Demoting Humanity
However, rather than acknowledging such fine-tuning as supportive of anthropic-centered design, Shainline chooses to demote humanity to a stepping-stone on which a mindless universe treads to attain the next cycle of meaningless existence. Shainline builds his case for evolving universes by presupposing a naturalistic origin of humans to help explain cosmological natural selection (CNS).
The mathematician Louis Crane took the idea one step further and argued that CNS selects for life because advanced civilizations use black holes as energy sources, connecting cosmological evolution to the specific observations of parameters tuned not just to make stars, but also to make life.
Shainline argues that since the only way humans could make black holes is with incredibly advanced technology, if black holes are envisioned as breeding stock for new universes, the universe we find ourselves in must be fine-tuned for technology.
The lengths to which people like Smolin, Crane, and Shainline appear willing to go to avoid any suggestion of a theistic creation seem to be without limit. Their cosmic evolution narrative displays a sweeping disregard for multiple lines of evidence. Here, I’ll call out just a few of their unsupported assumptions and departures from known science.
Assumptions and Departures
First is their assumption that multiple “generations” of universes exist, which of course is devoid of observational and experimental evidence. Next is their hypothesis that black holes give birth to new universes, which falls in the category of speculative physics, at best. Totally unsupported is their foundational idea that natural processes can produce life. Teetering on the brink of science fiction is their supposition that advanced civilizations would utilize black holes for energy sources.
I also maintain that to dismiss the existence of God departs from reason and evidence. Beyond the evidence for theistic design in the fine-tuning of the universe and the biochemical complexity of every living organism, powerful lines of additional evidence point to a supernatural mind as Creator. Our own minds exhibit unique characteristics that disallow a causal connection with any naturalistic source. The genome itself has revealed an immaterial “something more” as necessary to explain the development and ongoing regulation of our physical lives. Countless examples of near-death experiences are consistent with a view of a physically transcendent reality, but are incompatible with atheism and materialism.
An Unthankful Universe
By missing the comprehensive meaning of life revealed in The Story of Everything, Shainline’s baseline of meaning and purpose is reduced to cheering on the imagined replication of an unthankful universe. Shainline waxes poetic in his attempt to put a positive spin on the dismal outlook inherent in his own theory.
…from the perspective of cosmological natural selection, ushering technology into existence is a major part of our purpose. We and our machines are kin with a common function, collaborative participants grounded in an ancient cosmological mission. We humans are not the point of all of this, but we are a critical part — an elegant fiber, a gossamer yet load-bearing thread in the cosmological braid.
Fortunately, multiple lines of evidence cumulatively tell a different story — one emphasizing the meaning and significance of human lives. We are central to the story, not just as a cog on the rim of the wheel of evolution, but as the epitome of purposefully designed life in a finely tuned universe.