Editor's Note: This post is about some important cosmological numbers and the curious relationships which exist between them.  The numbers used are quite exact in terms of the math involved, but the relationships I will discuss are not so exact.  You may lay aside your scientific calculator during this exercise; there will be no calculations of decimal places.  The relationships cited are in terms of "orders of magnitude" rather than precise numeric values.  In a study of this type, exact values are not indicative and do not provide any level of certainty, whereas factors of 10 or 100 are of marginal interest, and factors of 1,000 or higher are significantly more noteworthy.

As I previously mentioned, intelligent design proponents have included the anthropic principle as part of the argument which states that some aspects of the universe are simply too complex to have been the result of chance, therefore a designer is necessary, especially with regards to the development of life and, more importantly, humans.  Physics happens to be one of my strengths, so I feel compelled and qualified to examine this more closely.

The anthropic principle merely states that humanity may be necessary to explain certain features of the known universe (that which we have thus far observed).  This assumption states that some of the coincidences in physics somehow equate to prerequisites for life.  This is flawed thinking since, should any of the universal constants be different than they are, the cosmos may well have spawned living organisms and intelligent life so alien to us that we are unable to imagine them in the context of our own limited understanding.  For that matter, we have yet to prove that this has not already taken place.  The principle also naturally hinges on how the constants involved are measured, and we measure them according to the foundations of our own sciences and mathematics.  Were our mathematical understanding based on a different numbering system — a base-8 or base-16 number system, for instance — it is unlikely that the coincidences involved would be as noteworthy as they are, if they would even exist under those circumstances.

Part of this belief system is that the universe is somehow peculiar for being old enough to have spawned life.  If, as we believe, the universe began somewhere between 11.2 billion and 20 billion years ago (those estimates have a 95% level of confidence), then assuming the universe is "just right" to have spawned life is a hilarity best shared at boring cocktail parties.  No matter how old the cosmos is, it would eventually have aged enough to support the development of life — some kind of life.

Our planet demonstrates fossils dating back 4.5 billion years; life must therefore have existed at least that long.  Since we know with certainty that life on our own planet has existed for billions of years, a scale of time which is relatively minute in geological and cosmological terms, it is inappropriate to conclude — assume — that the universe is only of sufficient age to allow for life.  We measure the criteria for this based solely on life present and identifiable on Earth.  This precludes any possibility of life having developed before that time.  We cannot deny life developed here prior to that which has been identified in the fossil record as far back as 4.5 billion years; therefore, it is a blatant and false assumption that life could not have developed elsewhere in the universe before it developed here.  We cannot be certain that we are alone in the universe (in fact, absent evidence to the contrary, we must assume we are not).  As this cannot be presumed, how comes it then that we conclude that the age of the universe is significant in this regard?  For this exercise, it is only significant with regards to the development of life on our planet, and this altogether negates the "just right" age premise.

The physics (therefore, the mathematics) used to justify the anthropic principle are relatively simple.  Certain numbers appear and reappear throughout physics formulae, many of them the most important constructs as yet identified and understood in the limited context we have available.  These numbers appear so frequently that the best physicists can often determine the solution to a problem simply by considering which of these constants play fundamental roles in the equations.  The numbers in question include the speed of light, Planck's constant, the protonic mass, the charge on a proton or electron, the gravitational constant, and the electronic mass, among several others (but this list is sufficient to demonstrate the type of numbers in question).

To help you understand some of the mathematical coincidences upon which the anthropic principle is based, I offer the following generalizations.  While I am not including any of the equations or proofs necessary to understand these descriptions (many of you would never read this post if I did), I hope this gives you an adequate frame of reference.

• 1. The Planck scales can be expressed in simple powers of the gravitational fine structure constant multiplied by the mass and length scales of the proton.

• 2. A "famous" yet irrelevant coincidence is that the mass of Sol, our sun, is almost revealed by multiplying a power of the gravitational fine structure constant by the protonic mass.

• 3. The number of protons in the universe is approximately equal to the inverse square of the gravitational fine structure constant.

• 4. The ratio of the size of the observable universe to the size of an atom is approximately equal to the ratio of the electromagnetic force between two protons to the gravitational force between two protons.

• 5. A Schwarzschild black hole whose quantum properties complete its evaporation in the current epoch (if the evaporation time is equal to the age of the universe) would have a radius equal to the size of a proton just before the black hole explodes.

All of these coincidences, as well as many others, form the basis of coincidental physics.  They also aid in the formation of the anthropic principle.  While many scientists call these true coincidences, possibly caused by our scale of measurement (some can be identified clearly as such), ID advocates who include the anthropic principle in their arguments for intelligent design see these as far more than simple mathematical oddities.  Even when discussing such important concepts as the mathematical foundations of modern physics, am I unaware of some requirement which states that coincidences cannot be just that — coincidences?  And to state that "I don't believe in coincidences" as an answer to that question is not sufficient.  It is not beliefs we are discussing; it is mathematical and cosmological truths.  It is pure science, and there is no room in science for personal beliefs or convictions.

The anthropic principle can be broken down into three primary versions (as stated by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, 1986), each of them equally invalid and assumptive (perhaps religiously so):

• Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."

• Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."

• Final anthropic principle (FAP): "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out."

While it would be quite simple to negate each of these based solely on the inclusion of assumptions and beliefs in scientific conjecture, I will not delve into that level of truth-mongering.  Instead, I will summarize my arguments for each with a single stroke across all three before my final analysis of the assumptive traits inherent in each flavor of the principle.

As you know my propensity to consume everything Stephen Hawking says, it should be known that he has suggested that our universe is not particularly "special" as proponents of the anthropic principle would otherwise claim.  His research indicates there is a 98% chance that a universe like ours would come from an event such as the big bang.  Utilizing the basic wavefunction of the universe, he further indicated that a universe like ours could come into existence without relying on prior events (i.e., our universe could just as easily come from nothing as it could from the big bang).  Essentially, as my own research has indicated, our universe is, cosmologically speaking, rather mundane.  Its existence hinges not upon the presence of life which can observe and measure it, but instead hinges solely on its own presence.  The fact that it exists is sufficient reason for it to exist, and it could equally exist without any life whatsoever.  Our projection of human traits onto the canvas of the cosmos is itself a human trait (the universe centers around us) and not indicative of any scientific predisposition or foundation.

Allow me to summarize the negation of the anthropic principle with the following.  The anthropic principle relies on four basic and flawed assumptions, each of which I will address below.

• 1. That all life in the universe is carbon-based.
  This negates the alternative biochemistry theories and hypotheses in astrobiology, and it also assumes that all life requires water.  A very real example of alternate biochemistry, found right here on Earth, is the silicate skeletal structure of diatoms.  While they are still carbon-based life, the use of silicates in this manner suggests that silicon may have played a roll similar to carbon in the skeleton's formation and could therefore, under different environmental conditions, supply an alternate basis for life.

• 2. That the universe is measurable and observable by humans because it is not random.
  Sounding familiar?  A wee bit dogma-ish?  This assumes the universe is conditioned on biological factors, meaning it is only measurable by carbon-based life because carbon-based life is necessary to define the universe (i.e., if we weren't here to observe it, it wouldn't exist).  This is equivalent to saying the tree does in fact make no noise when it falls in the forest and no human is there to hear it; the reason it makes no noise is because no carbon-based life forms were there to observe it.

• 3. That the principle need not permit any observational consequences to be derived from contemporary cosmological theories.
  The principle can only be accepted and not proven because it is impossible to correlate its premises with any existing mathematical constructs of the cosmos.  Essentially, it must be accepted at face value without rigorous scientific testing and evaluation since it does not integrate well with known observations, theories, hypotheses, and facts.  This is the greatest scientific heresy possible.

• 4. That errors in the interpretation of astronomical and cosmological data exist unless the biological constraints of the observer are taken into account.
  Clearly, if life elsewhere in the universe is not carbon-based, it would be unable to evaluate the universe without first taking into consideration human life.  Doing otherwise would produce invalid results.  While this premise references the observer, it in fact cannot stand unless the observer is assumed to be human (i.e., the math falls apart rapidly if our known biology is not used).  This premise is entirely false as we base our understanding of the universe on our own existence (i.e., it is measured by our system of mathematics and observational data).  Were we to exist elsewhere in the universe, were our mathematics to be based on a different foundation of numbers, or were our observed measurements of the cosmos based on different criteria, the biological constraints of the observer would radically change the formulaic basis of the principle.

The anthropic principle is flawed in every scientific manner conceivable.  It cannot stand without assuming a posture of human superiority within the cosmos.  It negates the possibility of life which is not equivalent to our own, something which is unknown and un-provable at this time.  Like intelligent design, it circumvents the scientific method by forcing others to accept it by faith rather than letting it stand on its own scientific merits.  Science is about measurement and observation, not personal beliefs.  There is no room to inject convictions.

The universe is a vast, diverse and wondrous place.  Our understanding of it is still quite limited and based entirely on what we can observe from our little corner of the Milky Way galaxy.    It can only be the pinnacle of hauteur and hubris to believe that such an expanse as has been measured thus far can only exist because of us.  If the universe is solely for our benefit, why is all of it outside of our grasp except that which exists within our solar system (and even that remains well outside of our direct reach)?  Should the anthropic principle be true, it would mean that a relatively infinite space caters specifically to a form of life that constitutes an insignificant fraction of the matter present throughout.

It is with great satisfaction that I resoundingly dismiss the anthropic principle as anything other than what it truly is: a dogma, like intelligent design, which attempts to use good science for malicious and deceptive purposes.  It is assumptive at best, a categorically unfounded belief that the universe does indeed revolve around humankind.  Its use as foundational evidence of intelligent design is nothing more than compounding one lie with another, assuming the reader is unable to discern that an untruth cannot be used to augment or define a truth.