Copernicus, God, and Goldilocks
Our Place and Purpose in the Universe
By: David Allen John Seargent
For many centuries humanity took it for granted that the earth had been specially prepared for us. We were God's special creation, the centre of the universe and the special concern of our divine Maker. It was long believed that the earth was indeed the physical centre of the universe and that the rest of creation literally revolved around us.
The revolution in thought associated with the name of Nicholas Copernicus (1473—1543) changed all this.
What Copernicus proposed, and subsequent discovery confirmed, was certainly a leap in our understanding of the physical world but it spawned a revolution in thought that progressed far beyond the actual scientific discoveries themselves.
From thinking of ourselves as the pinnacle of creation, we came to view mankind as nothing but a tiny speck swallowed up by the infinite ocean of the cosmos. Far from being the special interest of the Creator, we relegated ourselves to such a lowly position that we wondered if the Creator would even notice us, or even if a personal Creator existed at all. The leaders of modern thought were apt to dismiss God as nothing more than an illusion invented by mankind to try to ease his cosmic loneliness and to make believe that we have an importance that in actual fact is not ours.
Two of the corollaries which followed from this new view of our place in the great scheme of things were, first, the perception of mankind as a mere part of nature that had evolved from the primordial slime without benefit of cosmic design or a Creator God and, secondly, that there is nothing special about either ourselves or our planet and that, as a consequence of this, the universe should be filled with similar planets inhabited by similar conscious David Allan John Seargent
beings. Many people now accept these as self evident truths, reinforced by an educational system—both formal in our schools and informal through articles in popular science magazines—that not only does not foster critical thought on these matters but which actively pours scorn on opinions that question the `official' or `establishment' line, no matter how well thought out and expressed these counter positions might be.
Nevertheless, all is not as well with popular orthodoxy as its champions would like us to believe . . . or even, probably, as they believe themselves. While in no way wishing to denigrate the discovery of Copernicus and subsequent scientists whose truly brilliant work has enabled us to perceive for the first time our place in the physical universe, the present author takes strong issue with the philosophical conclusions which have been drawn from these discoveries. It will be argued that the Copernican Principle has been raised by philosophers of science to a level totally unwarranted by the scientific discoveries themselves; that it has been given the status of a fundamental feature of Reality—a philosophical `law' by which Nature confines humanity to a lowly place in the scheme of things. It will further be demonstrated that the Copernican Principle (when given the status of a philosophical principle) makes certain predictions about the nature of the universe; predictions which, though at one time popular with scientists just because they flowed from the Copernican view of the universe, have been disproved by more recent research. For a principle of science or philosophy, falsification is normally considered a fatal defect, but it seems that the Copernican Principle has become so much a part of our thought that these discoveries (though accepted by nearly everyone) are seldom even raised against it. It is as if mental compartmentalization has protected our Copernican faith—and `faith' is just what it is—in a safe environment untouched by the real issues of scientific discovery.The author suggests another interpretation of the implications of those scientific discoveries, by Copernicus and others, that have been used as evidence for the (philosophical) `Copernican Principle'.
Recent scientific evidence that goes against the usual Copernican interpretation will also be examined and evaluated.
From this recent evidence, the earth emerges as being a place `just right' for human life to flourish. This is the basis for what will be called the `Goldilocks Principle'—the principle stating that a `just right' balance of many factors must be attained for complex life to survive. Furthermore, to be `just right', these many factors have to converge in just the right way and at just the right time. It will be argued that an environment suitable for human life has been made possible on our home planet by a very low-probability combination of many factors—some of which were themselves very low-probability events—that conspired to make our planet's conditions suitable for advanced life. This is raised as tentative evidence for intelligent design, while recognizing that arguments can be brought against that suggestion in the absence of further elaboration and refinement.
The counter-design arguments are then examined and it is shown how any argument that attempts to explain away evidence for a purposeful design in any system (without recourse to an intelligent designer) encounters serious problems of logic. These are seen to be precisely the problems which are raised by those arguments which attempt to give a coherent account of the apparent design found in nature while at the same time denying the existence of a Designer God.
Issues surrounding the creation event itself will then be examined and philosophical objections to theories that attempt an explanation of the creation of universe from the laws of physics alone will be discussed and criticized.
The arguments found in these pages are presented as a challenge to a world view which has too often been assumed correct without David Allan John Seargent
examination. Yet, it is on the basis of precisely this world view that challenges are raised against the theistic—and specifically the Christian—view of reality. If this small book can demonstrate that the `Copernican' world view is indeed flawed and in need of challenge, the author's hope and prayer will have been answered.
