Subject: cosmic evidence of God

To: Robert Curry

From: Michael Hardy

Date: 12/16/94

Robert, I'm gonna back up and try this again.

Dr. John Polkinghorne, a physicist, writes:

"In the early expansion of the universe there has to be a close balance between the expansive energy driving things apart and gravity pulling things together. If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place. If gravity dominated, the univserse would collapse in on itself before there was time for the processes of life to get going.

For us to be possible requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a very ealry epoch in the universe's history (the Planck time) has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 10 to the 60. The numerate will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davies of what that accuracy means.

He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, twenty thousand million light years away, and hitting the mark."

Now before you retreat into your standard line of defense, note very carefully what Polkinghorne is saying.

He is NOT saying that for the universe to exist *just the way it is* requires beating unimaginable odds. He is saying that such odds must be beaten if the universe is to exist *at all.*

Gravity and expansion, at the instant of the Big Bang, have to differ from a 1:1 ratio by no more than 1 over 1 followed by 60 zeroes, or *nothing* happens.

All of this is before we ever get to the rapid rise of life on earth and the rapid evolution of the hominid brain, which I contend are also evidence of God. But for the moment, they aren't even relevant. Here, in black and white from a scientist who is very much within his specialty, you are told that the chances of *any* kind of life-producing universe from the Big Bang are almost nil ... and yet it happened. If this were an argument over anything else, you would be quick to concede that this is prima facie evidence of an intelligence.

If you see a painting, you deduce a painter. A house, and you assume there is an architect. The universe?

Frankly Robert, if you can look at the above statement and still insist that it must have happened by coincidence, then you have much more faith than I ever will.

Origin: Di's Online Cafe - Mobile, AL - (205) 661-8945

END QUOTE