Finely Tuned Life

A Review of Fit for a Purpose: Does the Anthropic Principle Include Biochemistry? by Fazale Rana

In 1986 physicists John  D. Barrow and Frank  J. Tipler published The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, whichaddressed the theological and philosophical implications of a material universe possessing physical constants with the precise numerical values necessary to support carbon-based life. This work forced the field of cosmology to straddle both science and metaphysics, accomplishing what Harvard physiologist Lawrence  J. Henderson was unable to do for the life sciences some 60 years prior. In Fit for a Purpose: Does the Anthropic Principle Include Biochemistry? Dr. Fazale Rana revisits Henderson’s thesis and examines key biochemical systems to ascertain whether the anthropic principle manifest at the cosmological scale is similarly evident in the world of the microscopic.

The Biochemical Anthropic Principle

Rana’s working hypothesis is, “[I]f the Creator intentionally designed the universe to be biofriendly, then he wouldn’t have limited the influence of the universe’s physical constants to the processes of star and planetary formation,” but rather would have “designed the physical constants to influence chemical and biological systems as well.”¹ Rana points out that Henderson demonstrated over 100 years ago that anthropic principles abounded in chemistry. This was manifested in Henderson’s insightful characterization of the acid-base buffering systems in blood, the cytoplasm of the cell, and other bodily fluids. Henderson had argued that such a perfect system could never have arisen from the unguided processes of natural selection.²

In examining several key biochemical systems (nucleic acid and protein synthesis, cell membrane formation, and energy harvesting pathways), Rana sought to answer three questions: (1) Does a molecular rationale and logic undergird the structure and function of these systems? (2) Are such physicochemical constraints as molecular geometry and hydrophobicity (the property of being repelled by water), dictated by the laws of nature, responsible for the configuration and activity of these systems? (3) When the structural properties and functional features of natural biochemical systems are compared with other conceivable biochemical analogs, do the natural systems display the just-right properties that make them unusually fit for life? If the answer to all three questions is yes, Rana argues, then these biochemical systems manifest anthropic coincidences.

Rana’s investigation reveals that not only are all three of these criteria met but that they demonstrate optimization—which is not what we would expect from complex systems arising from purely materialistic processes.³

Embracing a Biochemical Anthropic Principle

Rana then asks: What are the implications of embracing an anthropic principle for biochemical systems? Does this insight advance knowledge or present new avenues for research?

Under the naturalistic paradigm, biochemical systems are said to be the consequence of blind processes occurring over geological time. Consequently, research has primarily focused on characterizing or describing their properties. Rana suggests that an anthropic framework opens up new avenues for research because, as questions formerly raised to answer “what” and “how” are advanced to answer “why,” scientists will seek principles informed by such a framework. These principles would be powerful tools for developing new technologies.

Scientists will likely resist a biochemical anthropic principle (as many did the cosmological one) because methodological naturalism has held sway for so long. Nevertheless, Rana asserts that there are excellent reasons to affirm the biochemical anthropic principle that biological systems demonstrate exquisite fine-tuning with the just-right properties to sustain life—characteristics that by necessity evince a Mind.

Notes
1. Fazale Rana, Fit for a Purpose (RTB Press, 2021), 301, 302.
2. Ibid., 47, 48.
3. David W. Snoke et al., “Suboptimality and Complexity in Evolution,” Complexity 21.1 (2015), 322–327.