In this book, author David Seargent takes issue with the assumption, long held in Western thought, that mankind and the planet we inhabit, has no special or privileged features; that our being here is purely a matter of chance. Typically, the so-called ´Copernican Principle´ which, in essence, is simply an empirical statement about our physical non-centrality, is raised to the level of a fundamental principle of nature decreeing that there be no special significance in either our location or in anything else associated with our existence.
The author argues that our non-centrality on the cosmic stage is not the result of such a basic principle of nature, but is actually the consequence of the fact that our very existence is dependent upon a finely-tuned convergence of many different factors; a convergence which cannot occur in the centres of either the Solar System or Galaxy. In short, our position away from the centre does not reflect a principle of nature decreeing that our place in the scheme of things be a lowly one. On the contrary, it is a simple consequence of the fact that central regions of solar systems and galaxies are not places where life with our degree of complexity can survive.
At a more fundamental level, it is argued that the Copernican Principle (in its formulation as a basic principle of nature) actually makes predictions which are in conflict with observational evidence. The most serious conflict concerns the nature of the Universe at large. If the Copernican Principle is truly fundamental, it must be capable of being generalized such that no place in either space or time is given any special significance. This so called ´Perfect Cosmological Principle´ - a logical consequence of the Copernican Principle - predicts an eternal and infinite Steady State universe in strong conflict with observational evidence.
The question as to whether the earth´s position is in any way significant or special is to be examined within an observational context, not by appeal to a supposed natural principle decreeing that our place necessarily be without special significance. The author presents evidence supporting the contention that the earth´s place in the cosmos is indeed special, not in the sense of being central, but in the sense of being a highly unusual ´safe zone´ where advanced life can live and thrive. The zone is rendered ´safe´ because of a highly improbable convergence of many factors relating to the nature of our planet itself, the unusual nature of the moon, the wider Solar System, the sun and its unusual position within the Galaxy and even the Galaxy and its position in relation to similar nearby systems. Advanced life on earth exists on a razor´s edge, but is maintained in this exquisitely delicate balance by a ´just right´ convergence of factors.
The author terms this the ´Goldilocks Principle´ - the principle stating that for complex life to exist, conditions must be ´just right´; must be confined to a very narrow zone and that this zone be maintained by a highly improbable convergence of a variety of factors.
Some of the more important of these factors are discussed, demonstrating just how finely balanced the conditions must be to allow life at our level of complexity to exist.
Such a delicate balance must of necessity appear to exhibit purposeful design. But is this appearance real?
It is argued that the appearance is, indeed, genuine.
The argument that if enough monkeys play with enough computer keyboards for a sufficient length of time something intelligible, i.e.something having the appearance of design, will emerge, is debunked. It is argued that if an apparent product of design actually fulfils the purpose for which it appears to have been designed, the only rational answer is to accept the design as real. Monkeys playing with keyboards may just possibly produce something that ´makes sense´ in a general way, but it is illogical to attempt to explain, for example, an article in an encyclopaedia providing accurate information about (say) the life and work of Albert Einstein, as the work of monkeys playing with keyboards. An explanation of such an article that does not include intelligent design is illogical, irrespective of the length of time and the number of monkeys and keyboards allowed.
It is argued that many features of the world bear closer resemblance to articles in encyclopaedias than to objects merely superficially resembling designed artifacts (for instance, random images in clouds) and that it therefore must be concluded that they are bona fide products of design.
The many-universe model is briefly examined as an alternative to design and found not to answer the basic issues.
The question of alien life is also discussed and a skeptical conclusion reached (at least, with respect to complex life), although the question cannot be definitively answered at this time.
The author then turns to the ultimate issue of the creation of the universe. Does the existence of the Universe demand a Creator or may it have emerged from physical laws as some scientists suggest?
The author argues that physical law is a property of the universe and that it could not, logically, have existed prior to the Big Bang creation event. Like time, physical law exists within the Universe, not the other way around.
It is concluded that the modern picture of the Universe and our place within it supports the traditional beliefs concerning God and our relationship to Him. Our significance, in the last analysis, is to be found, not in our place in the creation, but in our relationship with the Creator.
