Is it possible that Earth’s habitability does not necessitate a fine-tuner? Maybe out of the billions and billions of planets, at least a handful were optimized for life just bychance, right?
More than a thousand different parameters—from soil chemistry to atmospheric constituents, and beyond—must fall within certain narrow ranges simultaneously for a planet to be habitable. We see no adequate twin of our galaxy, Sun, Earth, solar system planets, or asteroid and comet belts, all of which play a part in our existence. The entire mass of the universe, no more and no less, is needed to make even one planet with the ratio of elements that can support a wide diversity of life.
The probability of finding another body in the observable universe with the essential features and conditions to support advanced life—apart from invoking divine agency—is utterly remote, far more remote than the vast number of existing planets would allow.
Did God work through evolution?
Thanks to the work of evolution advocacy groups, we see a growing perception that the evidence for common descent is undeniable. If this assertion were true, then Christians would have no choice but to view evolution as the vehicle for God’s creative activity. (This view is called evolutionary creationism.) However, even the most compelling “evidence” for evolution can be reasonably explained by a creation model approach.
For example, many life scientists view shared anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic features as the most convincing reason to think that humans share an evolutionary history with the great apes. Yet, prior to Darwin, biologist Sir Richard Owen, among others, viewed shared biological features as variations of an archetypal design that originated from a Creator.
If we allow ideas from biologists such as Owen to guide us, we aren’t forced to accept an evolutionary interpretation of life. Instead, we can view the scientific data in a way that harmonizes with the biblical creation accounts.—Fazale