more Mainstream Apologetics ...
Evidence ID: MATH-EV15
Evidence: Improbability of Life-On-Earth Factors Occurring by Chance
Summary: The odds of life on Earth by random chance are so astronomically high they are considered by many as highly improbable. By comparison, the odds of life on Earth are more probable under theism given the evidence.
Description: When it comes to the precise fine-tuning of the universe, the notion of it occurring by random chance seems inconceivable.
What are the odds of the cosmological constants and planetary properties being precisely fixed at the moment of creation? Or were their life-enabling values established in advance of creation by a transcendent intelligence?
To answer these questions, we turn to a branch of Mathematics called Probability Theory [REF-PRB01].
Astrophysicists at Reasons to Believe [REF-RTB01] identified approximately 322 planetary properties that enable life on a planet [COS-EV16]. Essentially, their research quantifies and qualifies the set of initial conditions needed to enable and sustain life on Earth.
Reasons to Believe concludes,
Less than 1 chance in 10282 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. [REF-RTB02]
According to Reasons to Believe, the odds of all 322 planetary properties and 25 cosmological constants falling within their narrowly defined ranges by chance are 1 in 1x10282.
You do not have to be a mathematician to know that this is an astronomically low probability. It is no wonder that some mathematicians consider these odds to be statistically impossible [REF-BLW01].
To put these odds in perspective, there are only 1080 atoms in the known universe [REF-MAP01], [REF-WHI01], Therefore, the odds of 1 chance in 10282 is 3½ times more difficult than randomly selecting a singly marked atom in the universe the first time.
Another approach to determining best-likelihood is to compare the probabilities of each theory. This approach was originally proposed in 1998 by Robin Collins of Messiah College [REF-RCO06].
Collins asserts that the fine-tuning of the universe is best argued in terms of comparative probabilities [REF-RCO01]. His objective is to ascertain which theory is the most probable.
Using the simple illustration of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, Collins asks if it is more probably that the carvings were the product of a weather event, or the product of an artisan. He intuits that the busts of the four presidents of Mount Rushmore is more likely the product of a skilled artisan who knew what each president looked like, versus a weather event that was devoid of both skill and foreknowledge.
Collins frames the fine-tuning argument as follows:
His argument is based on the theories of rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism teaches that knowledge is the product of logic and reason (rational thought). Empiricism teaches that knowledge is a product of sensory perception (empirical evidence).
What Collins is stating is that fine-tuning under theism is the most probable and logical explanation given the evidence, and therefore it is the most reasonable conclusion.
The odds outlined above pose a real challenge for scientists seeking to formulate alternative fine-tuning hypotheses. Given the magnitude of the probability space, any hypothesis that relies on chance to any degree will fall outside the realm of probability.
Based on the atheistic single-universe hypothesis, the probability of fine-tuning to support and sustain life is nothing short of a miracle.
Resources:
Copyright@2025 Mainstream Apologetics