Science Shows Nature Is Too Complex to Originate through Chance

The Anatomy of the Universe

I had a respectable understanding of the universe’s physics, but a clearer picture crystallized as I dug deeper into its intricacies. Among the striking features I discovered were the universe’s exquisite complexity, precision, and balance. While the universe looks majestic to an observer, it is even more exquisite to a scientist examining it through the prism of physics and mathematics. The more you explore, the more you find that modern cosmologists—physicists, astronomers, and mathematicians—have revealed the universe’s secrets at a deeper level. From the exactness of the tiniest subatomic particles that give matter its unique characteristics, to the precise equilibrial forces that keep matter together in balance, to the fine-tuning that gives necessary order to the universe, everything in the universe’s framework is incredible. Even though I was not unacquainted with the universe’s workings, seeing it all come together with such elegant interconnectedness forced me to reassess the universe’s wonders and question the standard Western scientific narrative of its origin. Let me summarize some of these findings.

At its most fundamental layer, our universe is built from elementary particles, namely quarks, leptons, and bosons.² Electrons and photons are examples of the elementary particles we are most familiar with. Each elementary particle is defined by a few essential attributes: mass, charge, and spin. These attributes have fixed, designated values that determine the unique properties of each particle. For instance, although the mass of elementary particles ranges widely, the mass of each particle is precise to the decimal point. Likewise, an elementary particle’s charge has fixed quantum values from the set (±⅓, ±⅔, ±1, 0), while its spin can only be one of ½, 1, or 0. Specific combinations of mass, charge, and spin dictate the exact behavior and characteristics of the numerous composite particles, such as protons and neutrons, that elementary particles form.

What astounded me was the unlikelihood that such a precise framework could be achieved by chance. The elementary particles’ mass, charge, and spin values are not random numbers. Like a house of cards, this precise set of quantities, out of infinite possibilities, is required for the universe to have meaningful existence and structure. A slight deviation from these values inherent to our universe’s existence would create a destructive imbalance. Stable matter would fail to form. The universe’s fundamental forces—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear—would go berserk. Chaos would reign, and our universe would self-destruct. Yet the properties of the elementary particles are precisely those required to create a universe with stable matter, balanced forces, and a well-defined structure.

When I moved beyond the universe’s structural framework to study how it operates, I noticed a similar pattern. The fundamental matter and forces do not act haphazardly; they operate under precise, balanced laws—from classical, relativistic, and quantum mechanics to gravitation, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and more.³ These laws dictate how particles and bodies interact at the subatomic scale, at or near the speed of light, and under regular conditions. They determine how gravity, light, heat, sound, electricity, magnetism, and fluids operate. They govern the behavior of all forces and matter, from atoms and subatomic particles to stars and black holes.

Everything in the universe is subject to laws that dictate its behavior. Nothing can operate outside this defined framework of laws. Most astonishing is that the laws are, once again, extremely precise, balanced, and mathematically succinct. They can be modeled by mathematical equations that balance one set of quantities against another—a reflection of the exquisite equilibrium under which the universe operates. What struck me most was that none of the laws is useless, contradictory, or superfluous. Whatever laws exist are essential, exact, meaningful, and not more than necessary to run the universe. If we were to remove any law or introduce a new one into the universe, the imbalance created would tear apart the fabric of the universe.

Besides its structure and behavior, I found the universe’s most mind-blowing characteristic to be its calibration. This mystery baffled not just me; it stumps every cosmologist. Our universe has several finely tuned mathematical constants embedded into its framework that are essential for it to exist. These mathematical constants are arbitrary: there is no logical or theoretical explanation for their intrinsic values. Yet they are so precisely calibrated that a slight deviation in any constant would bring the whole universe down. Much literature talks about the fine-tuning of our universe.⁴ Martin Rees, the famed cosmologist and Astronomer Royal, has captured this subject with remarkable impact in his book, from which I’ll share a few snippets.⁵

The gravitational and electromagnetic forces are among the four fundamental forces in the universe. At subatomic scales, the electromagnetic force is much greater than the gravitational force, by a factor of 1036 for a single atom. If the gravitational force were a bit stronger than it is now, such that the ratio of the forces was 1030 instead of 1036, planets, stars, and galaxies would be smaller and thermally less stable, causing stars to die out in just thousands of years and preventing life from evolving on our planet or other planets. A similar life-inhibiting result would occur if gravity were weaker and the ratio sufficiently greater than 1036. The electromagnetic-to-gravitational-force ratio of 1036 at subatomic scales is apt for a universe that supports life.

A hydrogen atom has one proton, while a deuterium (heavy hydrogen) atom comprises a proton and a neutron. When two deuterium atoms fuse to form a helium atom, 99.3 percent of the mass of their nuclei is used to create the mass of the helium nucleus. The remaining 0.7 percent of the mass is converted into energy. This mass–energy conversion factor of 0.007 determines the strong force that binds protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus and holds the key to the chemistry of the universe. If this factor were 0.006, protons would not bond to neutrons, and helium atoms would never form, nor would any atoms heavier than hydrogen. The universe would comprise short-lived hydrogen stars only, with no planets or life. Conversely, if the factor were 0.008, protons would readily bind to each other without neutrons, leaving no hydrogen atoms, stars, or life in the universe. Any value other than 0.007 would not produce life in the universe.

Two dominant opposing forces were at play when our universe was born at the onset of the big bang. The rupturing explosive force of the big bang pushed the primordial matter apart, while the massive gravitational force of the dense matter pulled it back. The relative strength of these two forces dictated how our universe grew. If the explosive force had been slightly stronger, matter would not have coalesced under the weaker gravitational force to form galaxies, stars, and planets. Conversely, if the gravitational force had been somewhat stronger, the universe would have collapsed back onto itself. In either case, the universe as we know it would not exist. Any form of life would be out of the question. As it turns out, the calibration of the two opposing forces was so finely balanced at its birth that the universe continued to expand while allowing gravity to combine the matter into stars and planets, creating the possibility for life.

Numerous other examples exist of the arbitrary fine-tuning of our universe and of the havoc that would ensue if intrinsic mathematical constants had slightly deviant values. Like many, I was left speechless the first time I grasped the implications of the universe’s finely tuned calibration: each mathematical constant could have any value from an infinite range, yet their precise values are exactly what our universe needed to exist, stabilize, and grow. Attributing this to chance seemed too far-fetched to me. As I will explain later, cosmologists have tried to explain it using the multiverse theory, but it is a desperate and weak attempt.

The Extraordinary Earth

The precision and balance we see in the universe do not end at the level of physics. I discovered that the earth, the only planet known to harbor complex life, hums with equal poise. Our planet has many unique characteristics that make it habitable, hospitable, and rich with the resources needed for complex life. Perturbing any one of its planetary, geophysical, and ecological dynamics would destabilize it and cause life to perish.⁶

The sun has the precise size, brightness, stability, and distance from the earth to sustain life on our planet. If the sun were slightly smaller or farther away, the oceans on our planet would freeze, while they would boil if the sun were larger or closer. Either way, life on earth would perish. Likewise, the moon’s size and distance from the earth are optimal for producing the precise gravitational pull that keeps the planet from wobbling, which would create a hazardous climate for life. The earth’s axial tilt and elliptical orbital revolution around the sun produce friendly seasonal variations and widespread rainfall amenable to life. Slight deviations in either attribute would make earth’s climate too extreme for life. The earth’s rotational speed—neither too fast nor too slow—also aligns with circadian biology and sustains weather patterns apt for life.

The earth’s mass is just right for its gravity to allow complex life to move easily on land. With sufficient deviation in mass, biological species would either be pulled heavily to the ground or bounce around in the air. The earth’s plate tectonics adds new land mass and atmospheric gases to its ecosystem to replenish them against losses; otherwise, the planet would eventually lose its mountains and flatten and be covered with oceans. The planet’s magnetic field protects life from the dangerous solar winds and cosmic rays from deep space, while its atmosphere shields life from meteors and cosmic debris. Without either protection, life would perish. The earth’s sizable sea-to-land ratio secures a stable temperature and adequate water supply, both necessary for life, while its atmospheric composition of gases enables life to survive. Its several dynamic cycles—water, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and more—maintain a delicate balance that recycles life’s essentials. These cycles are tightly coupled with feedback mechanisms to maintain balance, equilibrium, and the earth’s continued habitability.

The earth is home to millions of living species that thrive on the planet in harmony. Every living species—on land, underground, in the air, or under the sea—has all the resources to survive and flourish. Every organism finds food, shelter, and security in one of our planet’s many distinct habitats. With its checks and balances, the food chain maintains an equilibrium for the multitude of life-forms on earth. Our planet is not just habitable for life; it is a resource-filled paradise for a thriving biological ecosystem. So far, we have not been able to find a single celestial body in the universe that comes close to hosting life, let alone having all the conditions for a flourishing ecosystem.

The Power of Chance

I have a sound theoretical background in advanced probability theory and stochastic processes. I know something about random behavior, chance events, and probabilistic modeling, after years of experience working on teams that design and build large engineering systems. I have worked in image and video processing, data compression, mathematical modeling, and software engineering, as part of research and development. I can say unequivocally, based on hard data and the science of probability and random processes, that purely random events can never build any highly complex, natural, real-life phenomenon on their own. Let me explain. 

Scientific data and observations are strong sources of knowledge if captured accurately, under strict methodological parameters. Often, scientists use the information they collect to propose or support theories. These theories may turn out to be robust explanatory frameworks or simply speculative opinions (or remain somewhere in the middle). Scientists from all relevant backgrounds have proposed various theories—all unproven and open to debate—to resolve the origin problems. After examining many of these origin theories, I realized that they all had a common thread: they relied on the power of chance.

Modern scientific opinion asserts that self-evolving, chance-based phenomena are sufficient explanations for the origin of everything—the universe, life, biodiversity, and humans. However, when I examined the prominent origin theories, I was troubled that the solutions they proposed for each origin problem were either inadequate or faulty. Many lacked the rigor, scrutiny, and detail expected of scientific postulates. Anything that could not be convincingly explained was attributed to chance. Random accident was a magical black box that took care of anything unexplainable. As I read the work of mainstream scientists and their critics, I was told to believe that chance justified the universe’s popping into existence; its fine-tuning; the appearance of life complete with RNA, DNA, and organelles; the perfect mutations of DNA to counter environmental hazards; and the evolution of the most complex system in the universe: the human brain.⁷ It dawned on me that when it came to the origin problems, modern scientific opinion misinterpreted and misused hard data and the precepts of science and probability to propose theories that best aligned with its ideology. In my eyes, it was being dishonest and misleading.

Could random events bring order and create highly complex engineering systems in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics, which implies that natural processes tend to move toward a state of greater disorder with time? In other words, natural processes don’t create order on their own. Those who need its assistance to back up their theories have exaggerated the power of chance. Random behavior can and does play a role in natural phenomena, but its impact decreases as the system’s complexity increases. Tossing a coin twice to get two straight heads is easy, with a likelihood of 1 in 22 = 4. Tossing the coin ten times to get ten straight heads by accident is improbable but not elusive. The chances are 1 in 210, or about 1 in 1,000. Tossing the coin a thousand times to get a thousand straight heads becomes almost impossible. The chances are 1 in 21,000, or nearly 1 in 10300. To give some perspective, the number 10300 is far greater than the number of atoms in the universe (~1080). The probability of getting straight heads decreases exponentially as we increase the number of tosses. The chances of constructing order in a system by pure accident are relatively small. As the order and complexity of a system increase, its arising by accident becomes practically impossible.

The complexity of a universe fine-tuned for life-sustaining conditions is much greater than the complexity of achieving a thousand consecutive heads in a thousand coin tosses. Numerous mathematical constants—each uniquely chosen from an infinite set of possible numerical values—must align precisely and concurrently. To resolve the dilemma of the universe’s origin, I found that scientists posit the multiverse theory: if we have an infinite number of universes, one of them is bound to hit the jackpot and carry the perfect calibration for life to exist. A very convenient explanation! But we have no evidence that more than one universe exists. And even if other universes do exist, that does not imply that an infinite number of universes exist. There’s nothing infinite and unbounded in the real world. The largest object we can observe is our universe, but even it does not have infinite space, energy, or matter. The concept of unbounded infinity exists only in theoretical mathematics, where the rules of the game change entirely when one moves from the finite realm to the infinite. And while everything that can potentially exist will exist in a theoretically infinite realm, the results don’t carry over to the world we know.⁸ The theory of infinite universes is realistically impossible, and so is the premise of the fortuitous fine-tuning of our universe. This was another red flag I encountered in my research, as I grew to realize that untenable scientific theories were pushed as definitive mathematical answers.

The Limits of Science

The fine-tuning of the universe is not the only puzzle for which scientists propose unrealistic theories. My exploration found that the first cause of everything faces a similar dilemma. The big bang theory is widely accepted as an explanation of the universe’s origin. The theory posits that our universe exploded from an exceedingly dense primordial state, inflated rapidly, and evolved into galaxies and stars over billions of years. The big bang theory elegantly explains the universe’s beginnings. Still, what bothered me was that it did not solve the problem of the ultimate genesis: Where did the primordial matter come from, and what triggered it to explode? Because of the cause-and-effect relationship intrinsic to the physical world, the primordial matter must have a source, with further sources going back to eternity in the past.⁹ It could not have popped into existence from nothing.

Classical physics dictates that every event is the product of a cause. In such a realm, the chain of causes would retreat infinitely into the past without a beginning, which is an irrational argument. The only plausible explanation for how everything started must be an uncaused beginning. Scientists have struggled with the enigma of the first cause—the first trigger that caused something to emerge from nothing and started the chain reaction of causes and effects. And this is where I sadly began to see disturbing behavior from the scientific community. Cosmologists and physicists started advocating opinions that stretched the limits of science. They not only came up with unrealistic hypotheses but also advocated them to the gullible public as scientific facts. I began to realize that their esteemed status as famous cosmologists helped them mislead the public with authority.

Stephen Hawking was the preeminent theoretical physicist and cosmologist of the second half of the twentieth century, known worldwide. Like many scientists, I regarded him highly for his work in cosmology. Yet I was dismayed when he claimed: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”¹⁰ Hawking not only proposes a theory for the universe’s origin but also claims it as a definitive fact, which is grossly misleading. He also uses a prerequisite—the law of gravity—to argue that the universe can create itself from nothing. But he does not address the elephant in the room: Where did the law of gravity come from? How could it appear on its own from nothing? Chance cannot create the laws of physics. Hawking’s claims do not answer the ultimate genesis question.

Lawrence Krauss is another famous theoretical physicist and cosmologist who advocated that the laws of physics allow for the spontaneous appearance of space, time, and matter from a quantum vacuum, which he defines as a modern, scientific “nothing.”¹¹ Like Hawking, Krauss uses prerequisites—a quantum vacuum and the laws of quantum physics—while changing the definition of “nothing” to make his claim that the universe appeared from nothing seem plausible. Again, his arguments are misleading and do not address the actual origin problem. Physicists have come up with many such theories to justify something emerging from nothing, but every theory they offer requires prerequisites—space, time, energy, or the laws of physics—that themselves require a cause, which they conveniently sidestep. Whatever their intention, this move serves as a clever deception to disguise the real problem from the masses: How did something first emerge from absolutely nothing? No one has an answer.

We have solved many mysteries of the universe that were unknown to us a century or two ago. Why can’t we expect the same for the origin problems? Can we presume that someday science will incontrovertibly establish how everything started—from the universe to life and everything in between? I don’t think so. The problem of how things began is different from the question of how they work. In particular, the mystery of the ultimate genesis remains scientifically insurmountable, not because we don’t know enough science but because science doesn’t know enough. Science is limited in what it can reveal to us. When it comes to the first cause and the ultimate genesis, the laws of science break down; in particular, the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Science can never satisfactorily explain how something appeared from a state of absolute nothingness, a state in which nothing—not even the laws of physics—existed. Moreover, the laws of physics are a precise mathematical framework to which the whole universe is bound and under which it operates. They are not a concrete, physical reality. How and from where did this abstract yet tangible framework appear? And why is the universe subservient to it? Science can never answer such metaphysical conundrums.

I continued my search for answers to the other three origin problems: the origins of life, biodiversity, and modern humans. To my dismay, I found a similar pattern: most celebrated pioneers and eminent scientists in each discipline stretch the data and observations to align with their worldview. Instead of being open to all possibilities and following the data wherever they lead, they stretch them to fit the conclusion they’ve already drawn: the source of everything is chance and self-evolution. Even when science breaks down or the laws of probability say otherwise, they fail to open their minds and accept the obvious possibility that something other than chance may be the source behind everything. The sad part is that prestigious scientists push their opinions with such force and authority that the general public blindly believes their narrative. Readers interested in the big four origin problems and how they led me to a path of self-exploration to find the meaning of human existence will find the research and conclusions in my book.

Chance or God?

After exploring some of the questions about the ultimate genesis, I now return to the original question: Do we live in a godless world driven by blind chance? Or is there reason to believe in something more powerful and sublime?¹² The scientific world—at least the one that holds sway—would have us believe the former and reject the latter. Many scientists attribute everything to chance and dismiss any notion of a higher being. That is perfectly fine, but the onus is on them to produce sound, rational scientific evidence to support their claims of a godless world. The reality is that scientists struggle hard and have so far failed to provide convincing scientific arguments for a universe initiated and driven by blind chance. And in my opinion, it is unlikely that this state of affairs will change in the future, not because we don’t work hard to unravel discoveries but because science, logic, and probability break down when it comes to the origin problems.

Having scientifically examined the big four origin problems, I reaffirmed the obvious rational conclusion: If science cannot solve the profound mysteries of our origins, the answers must lie elsewhere. They must involve knowledge outside science and possibly beyond our cognitive understanding. This is a fact we must be bold and honest to accept. We must be open to the conclusion, based on reason and data, that chance cannot explain everything unexplainable. Something scientifically unexplainable exists, which is the source of all reality. That “something” is referred to by many cultures as the Supreme Being, the Great Force, the Creator, or simply God. Given the wonders of the universe, world, and life, God must have supreme knowledge and power, not be subject to the material universe or its physical laws, and exist beyond the grasp of human intelligence.

The nascent curiosity of my early years led me to believe that science and religion enjoyed a comfortable coexistence. I felt a logical harmony between how things worked and why they existed. While training in the West, I found that the dominant scholarly positions forcefully promoted and celebrated the apparent dissonance between science and religion. Such debates piqued my curiosity and pushed me to explore the subject deeply. Years of research have reinforced my early views and revealed a disturbing picture: the reputable and powerful intellectual voices that hold massive sway over young, budding minds and the general public promote and cling to irrational and untenable theories just because, in their minds, God has no place or role anywhere in the world. While I still appreciate their scientific breakthroughs, I’m disappointed that their work misleads the public because of prejudice against God and religion in the academic sciences.

My childhood instinct—the natural predisposition of a young soul—was not wrong. Nature is screaming at every level with signs of supernatural creativity—if only we open our eyes. An honest and rational contemplation of nature is more than sufficient reason to believe in God.