For thousands of years careful thinkers have recognized that we live in a world that is very well suited for the existence of life. This realization has been confirmed in recent years by the plethora of scientific discoveries pertaining to the "just right" status of the entire cosmos with respect to the existence of life.

That is to say, in a universe that could have been utterly hostile to the needs of life, we have found that precisely the opposite state of affairs is actually the case; namely, that the universe literally caters to the needs of living organisms in thousands of different ways. The ancients intuitively realized this, but modern science has now confirmed their suspicion to a very high degree of accuracy. For we now know that the universe is comprised of a number of essential structural features called "the fundamental constants of nature." They are called "constants" because their respective numerical values are thought to have remained unchanged from the very beginning of the universe to the present day. Indeed, it is their fixed status that has imparted a degree of fidelity and stability to the universe that would have been impossible to achieve otherwise.

The strength of the gravitational force, which is one of nature’s most fundamental building blocks, provides a good case in point. The numerical value that is associated with the gravitational constant, g, is 6.67 x 10^-11, and this value appears to have remained rock steady from the birth of the universe to the present day. However, the most remarkable thing about the gravitational constant isn’t its fixed nature as such, but rather its perfect fit for the needs of life. For had the strength of the gravitational force been even slightly different, the universe would have been "stillborn," and we wouldn’t be here to discuss the fact. This is all the more remarkable because the gravitational constant could conceivably have occupied an infinite number of possible values. Yet, out of this endless sea of possible strengths, nature ended up choosing the only one that happens to be "just right" for the needs of life. This phenomenon can be likened to the mythical figure of Goldilocks, who ended up choosing the one bowl of porridge that was "just right" for her own taste buds.

This "just right" status is now known to apply to all of nature’s fundamental constants, and not just to the strength of gravity. Indeed, this could very well turn out to be the single most perplexing conundrum in all of modern science. For whereas scientists and philosophers have long been aware of the fact that we live in a "just right" world and universe, they have nevertheless been at a near total loss to explain why this might be so.

In the remainder of this book we will be exploring this fascinating issue in greater detail. Our goal will be to maneuver our way through the existing scientific evidence, so that we can hopefully identify the single most likely explanation for our "just right" cosmological status.

Chapter One — Self-Organization and Our "Just Right" Universe

And so it goes. The apparent self-sufficiency of our physical universe has caused many great thinkers to do away with the idea of supernatural Creator altogether. The rationale is simply that on the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be any scientific need for God in the present cosmic system, since the universe as we now know it superficially seems to be capable of generating all of its own causes and effects, without any need for an external Designer. The molecular phenomenon of self-organization greatly buttresses this apparent inference, because if atoms and molecules have the power to organize themselves into progressively greater instances of complexity (which they do), then there seems to be even less of a reason to invoke a supernatural Being to explain the nature of the cosmos.

The basic idea here is that if we can use natural cause and effect processes to explain the various events that transpire in our universe, there is subsequently no real need—at least from a scientific point of view—to invoke the creative activity of an Intelligent Designer. Such an invocation, on this naturalistic view, is not only redundant (again because the universe seems to be capable of generating all of its own immediate effects), it also seems to be unnecessarily complex as well, since a much simpler hypothesis (namely, one without God in it) appears to be just as effective in explaining why the universe is the way it is.

This Principle of Theoretical Economy, known as Ockham’s Razor (after the great philosopher William of Ockham), is one of the main guiding principles of modern science. According to this principle, one should not "multiply causes beyond necessity" when one attempts to devise a valid scientific hypothesis. Indeed, the history of science has repeatedly confirmed Ockham’s insight, insofar as the simplest hypothesis in any given discipline has more often than not turned out to be the correct one.

However, when we attempt to apply Ockham’s Razor to the question of God’s possible relationship to the universe, it seems to suggest that God is an unnecessary ingredient in the present cosmic scheme, since the universe, on the face of it, seems to be capable of producing all of its own causes and effects without any outside help.

The astronomer Carl Sagan reiterates this basic message in his introduction to Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time. Upon noting the causal self-sufficiency of the present cosmic scheme, Sagan wonders what type of function a creator would have, if any, in such a universe. Sagan’s point, if I understand him correctly, is that there is no real need for God in a universe in which all observable effects are regularly produced by natural cause and effect processes.

Such a view, however, turns out to be both philosophically naïve and scientifically untenable. For insofar as God exists at all, then it is clear that He must be the author of the present universal scheme (which includes the material process of self-organization). It is also clear that He must function as the underlying structural foundation for generic physical existence as well.

Moreover, there is no good reason for presuming that the metaphysical "buck" of the universe actually stops with the apparent self-sufficiency of material particles as such. For while atoms and molecules do indeed possess an amazing capacity for self-organization, we still do not know where this capacity ultimately came from. And since there isn’t a shred of evidence indicating that this property has always existed, we can’t simply assume the prior existence of this self-organizing power in an axiomatic manner.

Nevertheless, many informed individuals continue to insist that the property of self-organization was somehow responsible for generating its own origin long ago. Such a non-sequitur conclusion, however, is tantamount to assuming that the self-organizing power of a modern automobile factory was somehow responsible for its own origin at some point in the past. We know, however, that this cannot possibly be true, because such a profound level of automation cannot be responsible for generating its own self-organizing character. It is far too complex and technologically sophisticated for that.

We also know that the finite property of self-organization couldn’t possibly have been responsible for its own origin, because there was a definite point in the past before it ever existed. This follows from the very finitude of the larger universe itself. According to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, though, all finite objects and events must have a sufficient reason or explanation for their existence, causal or otherwise. Therefore, the self-organizing power of the universe must have had a larger reason for its own existence outside itself. The only way out of this bind is if it could somehow be demonstrated that this self-organizing property is eternal in nature, because in this case there would never have been a point in time where an explanation would actually be needed. But the phenomenon of self-organization is clearly not eternal in nature (because not even the universe itself is eternal), so the Principle of Sufficient Reason demands that it must have a larger explanation outside itself.

This conclusion becomes all the more compelling when we realize that the fundamental laws and constants of nature did not gradually evolve into their present life-supporting character through a process of natural selection, as is widely believed. Instead, they spontaneously came into existence with the origin of the universe itself, perfectly calibrated and ready for action.

This being the case, it is profoundly counter-intuitive to use the universe’s ostensible self-sufficiency and self-organizing power as evidence against an Intelligent Designer, because it begs the much deeper question that is ultimately at issue here, which is this: Precisely where did the universe get this seemingly self-sufficient character to begin with? It is useless to assert that the universe has always had this particular quality, as we have seen, because we know for an empirical fact that it did not. Indeed, according to a growing mountain of empirical data, the universe has most definitely not been around forever. Instead, it roared into being out of apparent nothingness some 15-20 billion years ago in an epic event known as the Big Bang. Prior to this point, there was no such thing as space, matter, or even time.

So we know that there was a definite point in the past before which the phenomenon of self-organization ever existed. The upshot of this realization is that we really do need to find a suitable explanation for this particular property. Interestingly enough, modern science has nothing to say about this critical issue. Scientists simply assume the prior, unexplained existence of this self-organizing power in an axiomatic manner, and for good reason—because this sort of axiomatic assumption is a necessary prerequisite for doing good science. Why? Because one has to start somewhere before one can make appreciable progress in any type of goal-oriented endeavor. It is one thing, however, to assume the prior existence of a self-organizing universe for the sake of doing good science, and quite another to use this axiomatic assumption as a tool for obviating the need for an Intelligent Designer. Nevertheless, many scientists continue to do this very thing. "Why," they ask, "should we invoke the creative activity of a Supreme Being if the universe itself is entirely capable of bringing about its own causes and effects with no outside help?"

The problem with this widespread belief is that it puts the proverbial cart before the horse, sinc