The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel [78]
“Besides, not all beauty is subjective; there are also objective aspects of it, at least in the classical sense. In his book The Analysis of Beauty, written in the mid-1700s, William Hogarth said the defining feature of beauty or elegance is ‘simplicity with variety.’ And that’s what scientists have found—a world where fundamental simplicity gives rise to the enormous complexity needed for life.”
I ventured another alternative. “Maybe the concept of beauty is merely the product of evolution,” I said. “Perhaps it has survival value, and so our sense of what’s beautiful has been shaped by natural selection.”
“That would only apply to things we can see, touch, or hear—things in our everyday world that are necessary for survival. But evolution can’t explain the beauty that exists in the underlying world of physical laws and mathematics,” he said.
“In physics, we see an uncanny degree of harmony, symmetry, and proportionality. And we see something that I call ‘discoverability.’ By that, I mean that the laws of nature seem to have been carefully arranged so that they can be discovered by beings with our level of intelligence. That not only fits the idea of design, but it also suggests a providential purpose for humankind—that is, to learn about our habitat and to develop science and technology.”
Collins mentioned that Davies had also commented about the beauty of nature in his book Superforce. Later I found the passage:
A common reaction among physicists to remarkable discoveries . . . is a mixture of delight at the subtlety and elegance of nature, and of stupefaction: “I would never have thought of doing it that way.” If nature is so “clever” it can exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the physical universe? If the world’s finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? . . . Uncovering the laws of physics resembles completing a crossword [puzzle] in a number of ways. . . . In the case of the crossword, it would never occur to us to suppose that the words just happened to fall into a consistent interlocking pattern by accident. 51
“Under an atheistic viewpoint,” Collins continued, “there’s no reason to expect that the fundamental laws would be beautiful or elegant, because they easily could have been otherwise. Even Weinberg, who’s an atheist, conceded that ‘sometimes nature seems more beautiful than strictly necessary.’ 52
“However, the fine-tuning for simplicity, beauty, and elegance does make sense under the God hypothesis. Think of the classical conception of God—he is the greatest possible being, and therefore a being with perfect aesthetic sensibility. It wouldn’t be surprising at all for God to want to create a world of great subtlety and beauty at its most fundamental level.”
“ALL OTHER THEORIES FALL SHORT”
We walked back into the conference room, knowing that we were getting close to finishing. Collins leaned against the wall, a mug in one hand, the other arm casually folded across his chest, while I perched atop the back of a chair, my feet resting on its seat.
The intersection of faith and physics was a fascinating crossroads to me, and I was curious about the impact of Collins’s research on his personal life.
“What has your study of the fine-tuning of the universe done for your faith?” I asked.
Collins put down his tea. “Oh, it has strengthened it, absolutely,” he replied. “Like everybody, I’ve gone through some hard times in life, and all of the scientific evidence for God has been an important anchor for me.”
That sounded like science displacing faith. “Isn’t that what faith is supposed to do?” I asked.
“I am taking about faith,” he insisted. “God doesn’t usually appear supernaturally somewhere and say, ‘Here I am.’ He uses preachers to bring people his message of redemption through Christ. And sometimes he uses natural means. Romans