The Anthropic Theory - Did Humans Create Our Universe?

The "Big Bang" theory states that around 10-20 billion years ago, an infinitesimally small point of energy (in essence, nothing) somehow erupted and quickly expanded into all the known energy and matter that exists today, including our galaxy, our planet, and even us - everything.

The physical evidence to support this theory is actually very strong and has proved accurate in all possible tests so far conducted. Pretty much all Western-educated people believe this theory, with the exception of a few very fundamentalist religious subscribers who deny it on the grounds of literal interpretations of ancient texts.

But, what is "somehow"? If it did happen, how? You may be surprised to find out what some of our brightest scientists believe.

For some Christians, it can be seen as a major triumph for the idea that scientific truth will be found to point to the Truth. Einstein, although considered one of history's most renowned scientists, initially rejected the theory of a "Big Bang" simply because of its implications. He later retracted his rejection when the evidence was too weighty towards it.

The implications of the "Big Bang" theory are enormous. Contrary to previous scientific thought, the "Big Bang" meant that space wasn't eternal, but there was a beginning to everything we know, including time itself. Of course, the Catholic church quickly snapped up the theory as the method by which God created everything out of nothing. Many other churches have followed suit.

The fact that scientists have to admit a beginning gives them two options: either to accept a "creation" and a supernatural view of life or to find ways around it. They have, of course (since most the scientific community insists on a purely material existence), found ways to try to explain around it.

The conditions required for the universe as we know it to spring forth from a "random" big bang are so astronomically and infinitely fine-tuned, that it presents an infinitely small probability that it could've happened "randomly". How intricately (and impossibly unlikely) the universe is set up to support human life has caused very smart and well-educated scientists to come up with variations on the "anthropic principle" - the idea that the universe exists for the purpose of humankind.

The Weak Anthropic Principle avoids an explanation entirely by using double-talk, but it is somehow enough to suffice many scientists who claim to be on a search for "truth". It simply says that we wouldn't exist to observe all the conditions of our universe if the conditions of the universe weren't just right to support our existence.

The WAP doesn't really seem to be an explanation and it definitely does not answer the question of "how", but I suppose it's confusing enough to satisfy scientists who'd rather not think about it, anyway. One prominent scientist who holds this view is Morris Aizenman - Executive Officer Astronomy Division of the National Science Foundation. That sounds like a pretty high-ranking scientist, all things considered.

The Strong Anthropic Principle hypothesizes an infinite number of universes for an infinite number of possibilities to cancel out the infinite improbability of a universe springing out of nothing to create and support intelligent life. This idea is also known as the "multiverse" and was even the subject of an old TV series.

Stephen Hawking (known as one of the smartest men alive) is one of the strongest supporters of the SAP, but it has several other well-known scientists, including Carl Sagan and Andrei Linde. I think this idea makes for interesting science fiction, but as yet there is no possible evidence for it, and where they thought they would find it (String Theory) now actually seems to discredit it.

On the other hand, Creation seems to have far more evidence in its favor, especially anthropologically, because nearly every people group ever has stories of divine creation, and also because so many people claim past (but now separated) or current interaction with a Creator.

The Participatory Anthropic Principle states that the universe as we know it only exists because we are observing it or so that we can observe it. This comes from a principle of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics that may suggest an electron only exists because the observer is observing it. This was specifically furthered by the well-known Niels Bohr, who even received the Nobel Prize.

However, the PAP is only feasible if you accept certain philosophical bases for it that deal with the question: "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" The PAP answer is "no" because it states that nothing exists that is not observed by an intelligent observer. Some take the idea even further to state that the universe exists the way it does so that humanity would be able to come into existence and observe it in order to cause its existence.

It's circular reasoning and I suppose if you accept the philosophical assumptions that allow for it, the reasoning is also acceptable. Nonetheless, circular reasoning is considered a logical fallacy and that any prominent scientists would support it may call into question the quality of the conclusions of their own research. A critical mind should have no place for such an idea.

The Final Anthropic Principle is the idea that our descendants will eventually evolve into a God that goes back to the past to create us... to evolve into God? Once again, this is circular reasoning, and it sounds like it might be even more far-fetched than the Participatory Anthropic Principle, a little crazier even than the Matrix.

As ridiculous as this seems, it is an idea put forward by both John Barrow (Research Professor of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge) and Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University) and many more highly-esteemed scientists are lending support for the idea, such as Oxford physicist, David Deutsch.

These four ideas were created by leading scientists to combat the obvious direction of the evidence - that not only was there a beginning to all existence as we know it, but it was fine-tuned for human life.

Can there be any theory other than Creation that actually explains the problem, doesn't involve circular reasoning, and has possible evidential support? These are all the fallacies of the anthropic principle, which seems to be the only serious attempt to consider the overwhelming evidence presented by cosmology while still denying a Creator.

Why make it so hard? After all, if the materialist bias of scientists didn't deny the possibility of a spiritual aspect of human existence, the evidence would be obvious.