Fikiria kwamba uliamka asubuhi moja na ukaenda jikoni kuandaa kifungua kinywa chako. Ulipokaribia meza ya jikoni, ulikuta vipande viwili vya mkate wa kuchoma vikiwa vimepakwa siagi ya chokoleti unayoipenda. Lakini siagi hiyo imepangwa kwa namna ya maneno ‘I love you’. Unashangaa, lakini kwa nini? Je, unadhani vipande vya mkate vilijichoma vyenyewe, na siagi ya chokoleti ikajipanga hivyo yenyewe—kwa bahati tu? Au unadhani mpendwa wako aliamua kuamka mapema kidogo na kuandaa mkate huo mapema? Kila binadamu mwenye akili timamu duniani atakataa kwamba jambo hilo lilitokea bila nia wala sababu; bahati nasibu tupu haitoshi kuwa maelezo.

Imagine you woke up one morning and walked to the kitchen to prepare your breakfast. As you approached the kitchen table, you found two pieces of toast with your favourite chocolate spread all over them. However, the spread has been arranged into the words ‘I love you’. You are surprised, but why? Do you think that the pieces of bread somehow managed to toast themselves, and the chocolate spread was able to arrange itself in such a way—all by chance? Or do you assume that your loved one decided to wake up a little early and prepare the toast in advance? Every rational human being on this planet will deny that it happened without any intention or cause; blind chance does not suffice as an explanation.

Ulimwengu si tofauti na hivyo. Una muundo wa ulimwengu wenye mpangilio na usahihi unaoelekeza kwenye usanifu wenye kusudi. Ulimwengu una seti sahihi ya sheria zinazoruhusu kuwepo kwa uhai, na umepangwa kwa namna maalum ili kuwawezesha wanadamu kustawi. Kama sheria zingekuwa tofauti, au kama ulimwengu usingekuwa na mpangilio nyeti kwa uhai wa nyota, sayari na vitu vingine vya kimwili vya ukubwa mbalimbali, usingekuwa unasoma kitabu hiki sasa hivi. Kwa kweli, pasingekuwepo uhai wa binadamu kabisa. Fikiria mfano mwingine. Fikiria kwamba wewe ni mwanaanga unayefanya kazi kwa NASA. Mwaka ni 2070, nawe utakuwa binadamu wa kwanza kutembelea sayari inayofanana na Dunia katika galaksi nyingine. Dhamira yako ni kutafuta uhai. Hatimaye unatua, na unaposhuka kutoka chombo chako cha anga unaona miamba tu. Hata hivyo, unapoendelea na safari yako hatimaye unaona kitu kinachofanana na chafu kubwa. Ndani yake, unaona viumbe vinavyofanana na binadamu wakitembea, wakila, wakicheza, wakifanya kazi na kuishi maisha ya kawaida yenye tija. Pia unaona mimea, miti na mimea mingine. Unapokaribia muundo huo, mabalozi wenye urafiki wanakupokea na kukualika ndani. Wakati wa mkutano wenu wa kwanza na hawa "wageni" wenye urafiki, wanakueleza kwamba muundo huo una viwango sahihi vya oksijeni. Pia una kiasi cha kutosha cha maji na michanganyiko ya kikemikali inayowezesha uzalishaji wa chakula na mimea inayotegemeza uhai. Ukishangazwa na unachokisikia, unawauliza wamefanikisha vipi kuunda mfumo wa ikolojia unaofanya kazi kikamilifu na kudumisha uhai. Mmoja wa mabalozi anajibu, "Ilitokea kwa bahati."

The universe is no different. It has an orderly and precise cosmic architecture that points towards purposeful design. The universe has the right set of laws to permit the existence of life, and it is ordered in a particular way to allow humans to flourish. If the laws were different or the universe did not contain a life-sensitive arrangement of stars, planets, and other physical things of varying sizes, you would not be here reading this book. In fact, there would be no human life at all. Consider another analogy.245 Imagine you are an astronaut working for NASA. The year is 2070, and you will be the first human being to visit an Earth-like planet in another galaxy. Your mission is to search for life. You finally land, and as you get out of your spaceship, you see nothing but rocks. However, as you continue your travels you eventually find something that looks like a huge greenhouse. Inside, you can see human-like creatures walking around, eating, playing, working and living normal productive lives. You also notice plants, trees, and other vegetation. As you approach the structure, friendly ambassadors receive you and invite you in. During your initial meeting with these friendly ‘aliens’, they tell you that the structure has the right levels of oxygen. It also has adequate amounts of water and chemical compounds to facilitate the production of food and life-supporting vegetation. Amazed by what you hear, you ask them how they managed to create a fully functioning ecological system that sustains life. One of the ambassadors responds, “It happened by chance”.

Mara moja akili yako inaanza kuelewa maana za kauli hii ya kipumbavu. Muundo huo hauwezi kuelezwa kwa njia nyingine yoyote isipokuwa kwamba ulibuniwa na kiumbe chenye akili, si kwa mchakato wa kimwili usio na mpangilio. Huku mawazo haya yakipita akilini mwako, balozi mwingine anakatiza na kusema, "Anatania tu." Kila mtu anacheka.

Immediately your mind starts to comprehend the implications of such a ludicrous statement. The only possible explanation for the structure is that it was designed by an intelligent being, not some random physical process. As these thoughts run through your mind, another ambassador interrupts and says, “He is only joking.” Everybody laughs.

Ikiwa muundo mdogo wa kiikolojia kwenye sayari yenye miamba unamfanya mtu ahitimishe kwamba lazima ulibuniwa, basi fikiria tunapaswa kuhitimisha nini kuhusu ulimwengu wote. Ulimwengu na kila kilichomo vinatii sheria za kimaumbile. Kama sheria hizi zingekuwa tofauti, lisingekuwepo maisha changamano yenye fahamu. Ulimwengu una mamilioni ya nyota na galaksi. Miongoni mwa galaksi zisizohesabika kuna sayari zisizohesabika. Mojawapo ya sayari hizi ni nyumbani kwetu, Dunia. Sayari yetu ina viumbe vyenye fahamu vya mamilioni ya mamilioni. Fikiria hitimisho tunalopaswa kufikia ikiwa sababu ya viumbe hawa wenye fahamu kuwepo ni mpangilio nyeti wa miili ya angani na sheria za kimaumbile. Hitimisho lisiloepukika ni rahisi lakini lenye kina: hili halikuwa matokeo ya bahati tu.

If a small ecological structure on a rocky planet evokes the conclusion that it must have been designed, then imagine what we should conclude about the whole universe. The universe and everything within it obeys physical laws. If these laws were different there would be no complex conscious life. The universe contains billions of stars and galaxies. Among the countless galaxies occur innumerable planets. One of these planets is our home, Earth. Our planet contains trillions of conscious creatures. Imagine the conclusion we must reach if the reason these conscious beings exist is due to a sensitive arrangement of celestial bodies and physical laws. The inevitable conclusion is simple, yet profound: this was not a result of chance.

Msingi wa Kiislamu.

The Islamic basis.

Hoja hii ina msingi wa Kiislamu. Qur'ani inataja vitu vya angani, kubadilishana kwa usiku na mchana, mimea, wanyama na matukio mengine ya kimwili. Mungu aliviumba vitu hivi vyote kwa usahihi wa Kimungu: "Jua na mwezi [vinasonga] kwa hesabu sahihi. Na nyota na miti vinasujudu. Na mbingu Alizoiinua, na Akaweka mizani."246

This argument has an Islamic foundation. The Qur’an refers to celestial objects, the alternation of night and day, vegetation, animals and other physical phenomena. God created all of these things with a Divine precision: “The sun and the moon [move] by precise calculation. And the stars and trees prostrate. And the heaven He raised and imposed the meezaan.”246

Neno la Kiarabu *mīzān* lina maana kadhaa. Miongoni mwake ni mizani (uwiano) na usahihi wa kimungu. Neno hili linaonyesha kuwa ulimwengu ulioumbwa uliumbwa kwa usahihi, uwiano na upatano. Aya nyingi nyingine za Qur’ani pia zinaonyesha usahihi huu wa ulimwengu, mpangilio na upatano katika ulimwengu.

The Arabic word meezan has a few meanings. These include balance and Divine precision. This word indicates that the cosmos was created with precision, balance and harmony. Many other references in the Qur’an indicate this cosmic precision, order and harmony in the universe:

Hakika katika kuumbwa mbingu na ardhi, na kubadilishana kwa usiku na mchana, zimo ishara kwa wenye akili.247

“Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the Earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.”247

Na Yeye amekutiishia usiku na mchana, na jua na mwezi; na nyota zimetiishwa kwa amri yake. Hakika katika hayo mna ishara kwa watu wanaotumia akili.248

“And He has subjected for you the night and day and the sun and moon, and the stars are subjected by His command. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who reason.”248

Wanazuoni wa Kiislamu wamekuwa wakitaja muundo wa ulimwengu ili kuonyesha haja ya kuwepo kwa mbuni na muumbaji. Wametumia hoja hii hata katika mijadala ya hadharani. Kwa mfano, Al-Ghazali anaandika: "Je, hata akili ya chini kabisa, ikiwa itatafakari kwa namna yoyote maajabu ya ardhi na mbingu hii, ufumbuzi wa ajabu wa mimea na wanyama, inaweza kubaki kipofu mbele ya ukweli kwamba ulimwengu huu wa ajabu, pamoja na mpangilio wake thabiti, lazima uwe na muumbaji wa kuubuni, kuupangia na kuuongoza?"249.

Islamic scholarship has referred to the design of the cosmos to evoke the need for a designer and maker. They have even used it in public debates. For example, Al-Ghazali writes: “How can even the lowest mind, if he reflects at all the marvels of this earth and sky, the brilliant fashioning of plants and animals, remain blind to the fact that this wonderful world with its settled order must have a maker to design, determine and direct it?”249.

Abu Hanifa, mmoja wa maulamaa wakubwa wa Uislamu, aliwahi kujadiliana na mtu asiyeamini kuwepo kwa Mungu. Imepokelewa kwamba mwanazuoni huyo alifanikiwa kutumia toleo fulani la hoja ya muundo (argument from design).

Abu Hanifa, one of the great scholars of Islam, once engaged in a discussion with an atheist. It was reported that the scholar successfully used a variant of the argument from design:

"Kabla ya kuingia katika mjadala kuhusu swali hili, niambieni mnafikiri nini kuhusu mashua katika Mto Furati inayoenda pwani, inajipakia chakula na vitu vingine, kisha inarudi, inatia nanga na kujipakua yenyewe bila mtu yeyote kuisafirisha au kuidhibiti?" Wakasema, "Hilo haliwezekani; haliwezi kutokea kamwe." Hapo akawaambia, "Ikiwa jambo hilo haliwezekani kwa meli, inawezekanaje dunia hii yote, pamoja na ukubwa wake wote, kujisogeza yenyewe?"250

“‘Before we enter into a discussion on this question, tell me what you think of a boat in the Euphrates which goes to shore, loads itself with food and other things, then returns, anchors and unloads all by itself without anyone sailing or controlling it?’ They said, ‘That is impossible; it could never happen.’ Thereupon he said to them, ‘If it is impossible with respect to a ship, how is it possible for this whole world, with all its vastness, to move by itself?’”250

Aya hizi za Qur'an na elimu ya Kiislamu zinafanana na ugunduzi wa fizikia katika muongo uliopita, ambao umeonyesha kwamba ulimwengu una sheria za kifizikia ambazo zinaonekana kuwa zimewekwa kwa usahihi kwa ajili ya uhai, na kwamba ulimwengu una mpangilio maalum unaowezesha kuwepo kwa binadamu. Usahihi huu pia umeitwa "fine-tuning" (kurekebishwa kwa usahihi) na wanafizikia, wanatheolojia na wanafalsafa wengi.

These Qur’anic verses and Islamic scholarship echo the discoveries in physics in the past decade, which have shown that the universe has physical laws that seem to be precisely set for life, and that the universe has a particular order that facilitates human existence. This precision has also been referred to as ‘fine-tuning’ by many physicists, theologians and philosophers.

Kurekebisha vizuri (Fine-tuning).

Fine-tuning.

Urekebishaji mzuri wa ulimwengu (fine-tuning) una vipengele mbalimbali. Kwanza, kama sheria za ulimwengu zisingekuwepo, uhai, hasa uhai changamano wenye fahamu, usingewezekana. Pili, ulimwengu unaonyesha mpangilio wa kuvutia; jinsi vitu vya angani na vingine vya kimaumbile vilivyopangwa vinawezesha uhai duniani. Data zote zinazohusiana na vipengele hivi tofauti vya urekebishaji mzuri hutoa ushahidi thabiti wa kujumlisha kwamba ulimwengu umeundwa kuwa makazi ya uhai changamano wenye fahamu.

The fine-tuning of the universe consists of various aspects. Firstly, if the laws of the universe were to not exist, life, especially complex conscious life, would not be possible. Secondly, the universe displays a fascinating order; the way celestial and other physical objects have been arranged facilitates life on Earth. All of the data associated with these different aspects of fine-tuning provide a strong cumulative case for the universe being designed to harbour complex, sentient life.

Sheria za kimwili

Physical laws.

Lazima kuwe na seti sahihi kabisa ya sheria ili uhai uwepo. Kama sheria hizi zingebadilishwa hata kidogo, matokeo yangekuwa ulimwengu usio na uhai changamano.

There must have been exactly the right set of laws for life to exist. If these laws were even slightly changed, the result would be a universe without complex life:

• Sheria ya mvuto: Mvuto ni nguvu ya mvutano kati ya misa mbili. Bila mvuto, hakungekuwa na nguvu ya kukusanya vitu pamoja. Kwa hiyo, hakungekuwa na nyota (wala sayari). Bila nyota yoyote, hakungekuwa na chanzo endelevu cha nishati kinachowezesha uhai.251 Ulimwengu ungekuwa ni ombwe lenye giza na tupu.

• The law of gravity: Gravity is the force of attraction between two masses. Without gravity, there would be no force to aggregate things. Therefore, there would be no stars (and no planets). Without any stars, there would not be any sustainable source of energy to facilitate life.251 The universe would be a dark, empty vacuum.

• Nguvu ya sumakumaku: Nguvu hii ya kipekee huathiri kila kitu ndani ya ulimwengu. Nguvu ya sumakumaku ndiyo inayotoa nguvu, umbo na ugumu kwa vitu. Bila hiyo, atomi zisingekuwepo, kwa sababu hakuna kitu kingeweka elektroni katika mizunguko yake. Kama zisingekuwepo atomi, uhai usingeweza kuwepo. Nguvu ya sumakumaku pia husababisha mshikamano wa kikemikali kwa kuvutia chaji. Bila mshikamano wa kikemikali, uhai usingeweza kuwepo.252.

• The electromagnetic force: This unique force affects everything within the universe. The electromagnetic force is responsible for giving things strength, shape and hardness. Without it, atoms would not exist, because nothing would keep the electrons in orbit. If there were no atoms, there could not be any life. The electromagnetic force also causes chemical bonding by attracting charges. In absence of any chemical bonding, life could not exist.252.

Kipengele cha kuvutia cha nguvu ya sumakuumeme ni kwamba ina nguvu moja, lakini inakidhi mahitaji mbalimbali. Katika kitabu chake, Infinite Minds: A Philosophical Cosmology, Profesa John Leslie anaandika:

An interesting aspect of the electromagnetic force is that it has one-force strength, yet it satisfies a range of requirements. In his book, Infinite Minds: A Philosophical Cosmology, Professor John Leslie writes:

"Nguvu ya umeme-sumaku ina kiwango kimoja cha nguvu, ambacho kinawezesha michakato mingi muhimu kutokea: kinaruhusu nyota kuwaka kwa utulivu kwa mabilioni ya miaka; kinawezesha usanisi wa kaboni ndani ya nyota; kinahakikisha kwamba leptoni hazichukui nafasi ya kwarki, jambo ambalo lingefanya atomi zisiwezekane; ni sababu ya protoni kutooza haraka mno au kusukumana kwa nguvu mno, jambo ambalo lingefanya kemia isiwezekane. Inawezekanaje kiwango kimoja cha nguvu hicho kukidhi mahitaji mengi tofauti kiasi hicho, ilhali inaonekana kwamba kila mojawapo ya michakato hii ingehitaji viwango tofauti vya nguvu?"

“Electromagnetism has one-force strength, which enables multiple key processes to take place: it allows stars to burn steadily for billions of years; it enables carbon synthesis in stars; it ensures that leptons do not replace quarks, which would have made atoms impossible; it is responsible for protons not decaying too fast or repelling each other too strongly, which would have made chemistry impossible. How is it possible for the same one-force strength to satisfy so many different requirements, when it seems that different strengths would be required for each of these processes?”253.

Labda jibu la kuridhisha kwa swali la Leslie ni kwamba nguvu hii imepimwa kwa usahihi ili kutimiza mahitaji haya yote.

Maybe a satisfactory answer to Leslie’s question is that this force is precisely calibrated to satisfy all of these requirements.

• Nguvu kali ya nyuklia: Kwa kuwa kiini cha atomi kinaundwa na protoni zenye chaji chanya, kingepaswa kulipuka na kutawanyika, kwa sababu chaji hufukuzana. Hata hivyo, kiini kinabaki kikiwa salama kutokana na nguvu kali ya nyuklia. Kama hili lingebadilishwa, "ulimwengu huenda ungekuwa na shimo jeusi kubwa."254.

• The strong nuclear force: Since the nucleus is made up of positively charged protons, it should just fly apart, because charges repel each other. However, the nucleus remains intact because of the strong nuclear force. If this were changed, “the universe would most likely consist of a giant black hole.”254.

• Nguvu dhaifu ya nyuklia: Nguvu dhaifu ya nyuklia ina nguvu zaidi kuliko nguvu ya mvuto, lakini athari yake inaonekana tu katika umbali mdogo sana. Ndiyo inayochochea nyota kung'aa na kuhusika na kuundwa kwa elementi. Pia ndiyo inayohusika na kuoza kwa mionzi (radioactive decay). Jua lisingeweza kuwaka bila nguvu hii, kwa kuwa inacheza jukumu muhimu katika muunganiko wa nyuklia (nuclear fusion). Kama nguvu hii ingekuwa na nguvu kidogo zaidi au kidogo pungufu, nyota zisingeweza kuundwa. Kwa kuzingatia mifano hii ya upangaji makini (fine-tuning) wa sheria za fizikia, kila mtu mwenye akili timamu angejiuliza maswali mazito: Sheria hizi za fizikia zimetoka wapi? Kwa nini tunaona sheria hizi badala ya seti nyingine? Sheria hizi zinawezaje kuendesha michakato ya kimwili isiyo na fahamu, isiyo na akili, isiyo na mpangilio na ya kubahatisha ili kuwezesha maisha ya binadamu? Ni dalili ya akili yenye busara kuhitimisha kwamba mtunga sheria, 'mwanahisabati' mkuu, au 'akili' ya kikosmiki ndiye aliyeunda sheria hizi ili kuwezesha maisha yenye fahamu.

• The weak nuclear force: The weak nuclear force is stronger than the force of gravity, but its strength is only effectual at extremely small distances. It is responsible for fuelling stars and the formation of elements. It is also responsible for radioactive decay. The sun would not be able to burn without this force, as it plays an important role in nuclear fusion. If this force were slightly stronger or weaker, stars would not form. In light of the above examples of the fine-tuning of physical laws, any rational person would ask some serious questions: Where did these laws of physics come from? Why do we observe these laws rather than a different set? How do these laws drive non-conscious, non-rational, blind and random physical processes to facilitate human life? It is a sign of a rational mind to conclude that a lawmaker, a ‘grand’ mathematician, or cosmic ‘mind’ created these laws to facilitate conscious life.

Mpangilio wa ulimwengu.

Cosmic order.

Mpangilio mzuri tunaouona katika ulimwengu, na maelewano yake ya kimbingu, si tu kwamba umewashangaza wafikiri wa kawaida, bali pia umewavutia akili kubwa kabisa. Albert Einstein aliwahi kusema:

The orderly display we observe in the universe, and its celestial harmony, has not only evoked awe in the average thinker, but also mesmerised the greatest minds. Albert Einstein once said:

“Mimi si mtu asiyeamini Mungu, wala siwezi kujiita mpantheisti. Tuko katika hali ya mtoto mdogo anayeingia katika maktaba kubwa iliyojaa vitabu vya lugha nyingi. Mtoto huyo anajua kwamba mtu fulani lazima aliviandika vitabu hivyo. Hajui vilivyoandikwa vipi. Hayaelewi lugha ambazo vitabu hivyo vimeandikwa. Mtoto huyo anahisi kwa mbali kwamba kuna mpangilio wa ajabu katika jinsi vitabu vilivyopangwa, lakini hajui ni mpangilio gani huo. Hiyo, kwangu, ndiyo hali ya hata mtu mwenye akili zaidi kuhusu Mungu. Tunaiona ulimwengu ukiwa umepangwa kwa ustadi wa ajabu na ukitii sheria fulani, lakini tunazielewa sheria hizo kwa kiasi kidogo tu. Akili zetu finyu zinaweza kufahamu nguvu ya ajabu inayoyasogeza makundi ya nyota.”255.

“I’m not an atheist, and I do not think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but does not know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.”255.

Hata Richard Dawkins, mwanaatheism mwenye msimamo mkali, ametoa maoni kuhusu mpangilio wa ulimwengu. Ingawa anakataa dhana ya usanifu (design) na kutoa maelezo yake mwenyewe ya kinaturalisti, bado anaangazia jambo lililowavutia sana watu kama Einstein.

Even the outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins has commented on the order in the universe. Although he dismisses the design hypothesis and provides his own naturalistic explanation, he still highlights what mesmerised the likes of Einstein:

“Lakini ninachokiona ninapoandika ni kwamba nina bahati kuwa hai, na nawe pia. Tunaishi katika sayari ambayo karibu ni kamilifu kwa aina yetu ya maisha: si moto mno wala baridi mno, ikiota jua la upole, ikinyweshwa maji kwa upole; sayari inayozunguka kwa upole, sherehe ya mavuno ya kijani na dhahabu… je, ni kwa uwezekano gani sayari iliyochaguliwa kwa bahati nasibu ingekuwa na sifa hizi za kukubalika?”256.

“But what I see as I write is that I am lucky to be alive and so are you. We live on a planet that is all but perfect for our kind of life: not too warm and not too cold, basking in kindly sunshine, softly watered; a gently spinning, green and gold harvest festival of a planet… what are the odds that a planet picked at random would have these complaisant properties?”256.

Ulimwengu kwa kweli umepangwa kwa namna ya ajabu, na unaonyesha mpangilio tata. Mpangilio huu ukiwa tofauti, ingekuwa vigumu sana maisha ya binadamu kustawi. Hapa kuna mifano michache iliyochaguliwa ya kutafakari:

The universe is indeed “marvellously arranged” and it displays intricate order. If this order were different, it would be highly unlikely that human life could flourish. Here are some selected examples to reflect upon:

• Nafasi ya sayari yetu: Moja ya sifa zinazoiwezesha dunia yetu kuhimili uhai ni umbali wake kutoka Jua. Dunia iko katika eneo linalojulikana kama eneo lenye uwezo wa kuhimili uhai (habitable zone). Eneo hili linafafanuliwa kuwa "eneo ambako joto linalotoka kwenye nyota kuu hutoa halijoto ya uso wa sayari ambapo bahari ya maji haigandi wala kufikia kiwango cha kuchemka."257 Kama dunia yetu ingekuwa karibu kidogo zaidi na Jua, ingekuwa na joto kali mno kiasi cha kutoweza kuhimili uhai. Kama ingekuwa mbali zaidi, ingekuwa baridi mno kiasi cha kutoweza kuwezesha uhai changamano kama wetu.

• The position of our planet: One of the life-supporting features of our planet is its distance from the Sun. Earth is located in an area known as the habitable zone. This zone is defined as the “region where heating from the central star provides a planetary surface temperature at which a water ocean neither freezes over nor exceeds boiling point.”257 If our planet were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot to host life. If it were farther away, it would be too cold to facilitate complex life, such as our own.

• Mvuto wa Jupiter: Kutokuwepo kwa sayari kubwa ya gesi ya Jupiter katika mfumo wetu wa jua kungekuwa na madhara makubwa kwa uhai. Profesa wa Sayansi ya Jiolojia Peter Ward anashikilia kwamba, "Bila Jupiter, kuna uwezekano mkubwa kwamba uhai wa wanyama usingekuwepo duniani leo."258 Jupiter hufanya kazi kama ngao ya kikosmiki; huzuia komet na asteroidi kuipiga sayari yetu kwa sababu mvuto wake "hunyonya" asteroidi. Bila sayari yetu rafiki ya gesi, maendeleo ya uhai wenye hali ya juu huenda yasingewezekana. Rebecca Martin, Mtafiti wa NASA Sagan aliyesoma athari za Jupiter, anasema, "Utafiti wetu unaonyesha kwamba sehemu ndogo sana ya mifumo ya sayari iliyoonekana hadi sasa inaonekana kuwa na sayari kubwa za gesi katika nafasi sahihi ya kuzalisha ukanda wa asteroidi wa ukubwa unaofaa, jambo linalotoa uwezekano wa uhai kwenye sayari ya mawe iliyo karibu… Utafiti wetu unapendekeza kwamba mfumo wetu wa jua huenda ni wa pekee."259

• Jupiter’s gravitational pull: The absence of the gas giant Jupiter in our solar system would have severe implications for life. Professor of Geological Sciences Peter Ward maintains, “Without Jupiter, there is a strong likelihood that animal life would not exist on Earth today.”258 Jupiter acts as a cosmic shield; it prevents comets and asteroids from bombarding our planet because its gravitational pull ‘sucks’ up asteroids. Without our friendly gas giant, the development of advanced life might not have been possible Rebecca Martin, a NASA Sagan Fellow who studied the influence of Jupiter, states, “Our study shows that only a tiny fraction of planetary systems observed to date seem to have giant planets in the right location to produce an asteroid belt of the appropriate size, offering the potential for life on a nearby rocky planet… Our study suggests that our solar system may be rather special.”259

Bila uwepo wa Jupiter, maisha duniani yangekuwa magumu sana kudumishwa, kutokana na idadi kubwa ya migongano ya asteroidi na komet.260 261.

Without the presence of Jupiter, life on our planet would have been extremely difficult to sustain, due to the large number of collisions by asteroids and comets.260 261.

• Mawimbi ya mwezi: Ukubwa wa mwezi wa Dunia, ambao ni mkubwa kiasi, ndio unaosababisha mawimbi ya bahari, kutokana na nguvu yake ya mvuto. Baada ya kuumbwa kwa Mwezi, ulikuwa karibu zaidi na Dunia kuliko ilivyo sasa, lakini ukaribu huu ulidumu kwa muda mfupi. Kama Mwezi usingerudi nyuma (kutokana na kasi ya mzunguko yaani momentum ya angular), kungekuwa na madhara makubwa kwa sayari yetu. Miongoni mwa madhara hayo ni kupashwa joto kwa uso wa Dunia, jambo ambalo lingezuia viumbe changamano kuibuka.

• Lunar tides: The relatively large size of Earth’s moon is responsible for tides, due to its gravitational pull. After the Moon’s formation, it was closer to the Earth than it is now, but this proximity was short-lived. If the Moon had not receded (due to angular momentum), there would have been serious effects on our planet. These include heating the Earth’s surface, which would have prevented complex life from emerging.

Profesa Ward anaeleza kwamba Mwezi ulio karibu zaidi ungeweza kusababisha ukoko wa Dunia kujikunja na kutoa joto la msuguano, pengine likiyeyusha uso wake: "Mawimbi ya bahari (na mawimbi ya nchi kavu) kutoka kwa Mwezi ulio karibu yangekuwa makubwa sana, na kujikunja kwa ukoko wa Dunia, pamoja na joto la msuguano, huenda kwa kweli kuliyeyusha uso wa miamba."262.

Professor Ward explains that a closer Moon would have flexed the Earth’s crust and produced frictional heating, possibly melting its surface: “The ocean tides (and land tides) from a nearby Moon would have been enormous, and the flexing of the Earth’s crust, along with the frictional heating, may have actually melted the rocky surface.”262.

• Kuleta utulivu wa mwelekeo wa mhimili wa mzunguko wa Dunia: Mwezi pia umehusika katika kuleta utulivu wa mwelekeo wa mhimili wa Dunia. Profesa Ward anaeleza kwamba ingawa "mwelekeo wa mwinamo hubadilika katika vipindi vya makumi ya maelfu ya miaka sayari inapoyumba, kama vile kuyumba kwa kigoli kinachozunguka, pembe ya mwinamo kuhusiana na ndege ya obiti hubaki karibu bila kubadilika."263.

• Stabilizing the tilt of the Earth’s spin axis: The Moon has also been responsible for stabilizing the tilt of the Earth’s axis. Professor Ward explains that even though “the direction of the tilt varies over periods of tens of thousands of years as the planet wobbles, much like precession of a spinning top, the angle of the tilt relative to the orbit plane remains almost fixed.”263.

Pembe hili limebaki thabiti kwa mamia ya mamilioni ya miaka kutokana na mvutano wa mvuto wa mwezi. Kama mwezi ungekuwa mdogo zaidi, au ungekuwa na mahali tofauti kuhusiana na Jua na Jupita, usingeweza kutoa "uthabiti wa muda mrefu wa joto la Dunia".

This angle has held steady for hundreds of millions of years due to the gravitational pull of the moon. If the moon were smaller, or had a different location in relation to the Sun and Jupiter, it would not provide “long-term stability of the Earth’s temperature”.

264 Kwa hiyo, ikiwa Dunia isingekuwa na mwezi, hali ya hewa ya sayari yetu ingekuwa ya kubadilika, kali na inayobadilika daima. Viumbe vidogo tu ndivyo vingeweza kuibuka, na uhai changamano usingewezekana. Kwa kuzingatia yaliyotajwa hapo juu, ni nini kinachoeleza vyema sheria za fizikia na mpangilio mzuri wa mfumo wetu wa jua? Kuna chaguo chache:

264 Therefore, if the Earth did not have a moon, the climate of our planet would be dynamic, severe and ever changing. Only small organisms would have emerged, and complex life would not be possible. In light of the above, what best explains the laws of physics and the orderly display of our solar system? There are a few options:

bahati, lazima ya kimwili, ulimwengu-nyingi (multiverse) au usanifu wa makusudi (design).

chance, physical necessity, the multiverse or design.

Nafasi.

Chance.

Kwamba marekebisho haya madogo ya kiwango cha juu yalitokea kwa bahati yanaonyesha kuwa sheria za fizikia na mpangilio wa mfumo wetu wa jua vilitokea bila nia wala kusudi. Vilitokana na sababu za kubahatisha, za kiholela na zisizopangwa. Dai hili si la kimantiki. Tazama picha hii ya Bruce Lee.265

For this fine-tuning to have arisen by chance indicates that the laws of physics and the display of our solar system occurred without any intention or purpose. They were a result of accidental, random and haphazard causes. This is an irrational assertion. Consider this painting of Bruce Lee265

.

.

Kama ningekuambia kwamba ilikuwa matokeo ya bahati—kwamba wino ulidondoka kwenye turubai na kutoa picha hii—ungeikataa wazo hilo mara moja. Hiyo ni kwa sababu uzoefu wako na maarifa yako ya msingi vinakuambia kwamba jambo hilo haliwezekani. Vivyo hivyo, kama ningebishana kwamba Sanamu ya Uhuru ilitokana na bahati nasibu tupu, ungefikiri nimepotoka akili.

If I told you that it was a result of chance—that some ink fell on the canvas and produced this picture—you would dismiss the idea immediately. That’s because your experiences and background information tell you it is impossible. Similarly, if I argued that the Statue of Liberty was a result of blind chance, you would think I was deluded.

Dhana ya bahati nasibu sio tu isiyo ya kimantiki, bali pia ni hoja inayopingana yenyewe. Ninamaanisha kwamba mtu akidai bahati nasibu, ni sawa na kutoa dai lolote lisilo la kimantiki. Kwa mfano, ningeweza kumwambia mtu asiyeamini kuwepo kwa Mungu kwamba ninaamini mama yangu si kweli mwanamke ninayemwita mama, bali ni tembo mkubwa wa rangi ya pinki aliyezaliwa kwenye sayari ya Pluto na kuja hapa akiruka juu ya manyoya makubwa. Rafiki yangu huyo asiyeamini angeniita mwendawazimu, lakini ningejibu, "Bado kuna uwezekano." Kukubali dhana ya bahati nasibu kunafanya kila dai liwezekane, na nafasi ya akili ingefutwa katika mijadala yetu ya kitaaluma na ya kila siku. Ningeweza kudai kwamba Uislamu ni kweli kwa sababu kuna uwezekano kwamba ni kweli, na ningekuwa na haki ya kiepistemolojia kutoa dai kama hilo, kwa sababu mara tu mtu anapokubali dhana ya bahati nasibu kama hoja, anafungua mlango kwa mtu yeyote kudai chochote anachotaka.

The chance hypothesis is not only irrational, it is counter-discourse. What I mean by this is that if someone were to claim chance, it would be equivalent to making any type of irrational claim. For instance, I could tell an atheist that I believe that my mother is not really the woman who I call my mother, but rather a large pink elephant that was born on Pluto and flew here on a giant feather. My atheist friend would call me crazy, but I would reply, “There’s still a chance.” Adopting the chance hypothesis renders all claims possible, and the role of reason would be made redundant in our academic and everyday discussions. I could assert that Islam is true because there is a chance that it is, and I would be within my epistemic rights to make such a claim because the minute someone adopts the chance hypothesis as an argument, it opens the door to anyone claiming anything they want to claim.

Mtu asiyeamini kuwepo kwa Mungu anayekubali dhana ya bahati nasibu kama maelezo halali ya ulinganifu mzuri wa sheria za kimwili lazima ashtakiwe kwa viwango viwili vya kiakili. Katika maamuzi yao ya kila siku, bahati nasibu haizingatiwi kama sababu ya kuridhisha kwa mambo yasiyowezekana sana. Fikiria mtu asiyeamini kuwepo kwa Mungu, mwanamke, akimwambia mwanawe asile kuki yoyote kabla ya kwenda kulala, kisha akamkuta amelala sakafuni na makombo ya kuki usoni mwake, huku kopo la kuki likiwa wazi karibu naye. Unadhani atahitimisha nini? Unadhani dhana ya bahati nasibu ingewahi hata kumjia akilini mwake? Bila shaka hapana. Fikiria mtindo huo wa kufikiri ukitumika katika miamala yetu ya kifedha, au mahakamani na katika siasa. Maisha ya kila siku, mambo ya dunia na uchumi wetu vingekuwa vya machafuko. Wengi wasioamini kuwepo kwa Mungu huweka kiwango cha juu cha ushahidi linapokuja suala la Mungu, lakini katika maisha yao ya kila siku hutumia kipimo tofauti. Msisitizo wao wa kukataa yaliyo wazi unaonekana kuwa na chanzo cha kihisia (au, kama baadhi ya wanafikra wanavyosema, cha kiroho). Kwa baadhi ya wasioamini, hoja zinazoitwa za kimantiki hutumika kama pazia la kuficha tatizo kubwa zaidi: kiburi cha kutotaka kumwabudu Mungu (ona Sura ya 15).