The Anthropic Principle states that if the universe had formed in any slightly different manner, life could not have evolved (as we know it). The charge of the electron just happens to be exactly the opposite of the proton. Also, it is large enough to last for enough time to give life a chance to develop. At first glance, these strange coincidences seem to point to God's existence. The principle leads to the assumption that there is a Designer who orchestrated the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang so that the universe would eventually support life. However, there are objections to the principle. First, there may be countless universes existing throughout time, space, or both, one of which happens to support life. Maybe electron charges are different in each of these universes and life only exists in the one where it is exactly opposed to the proton. "It is hardly more than a tautology to say that observers will find themselves in a universe where observation is possible."¹⁰ Of course this is true! Innumerable universes and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive, but the former tends to invalidate the Anthropic Principle, which is often used as an argument for God's existence. God could create many universes, each with differing electron charges (among other changes), but that seems more unlikely than Him creating a single, well designed universe. Maybe each universe has observers in it who think that their particular universe is the only one capable of supporting life. As an aside, it must also be noted that this whole argument is based on the Big Bang theory. It could all be overturned tomorrow if the theory were to be discarded, and the universe proved to be somehow eternal. We should be prepared for that possibility, as science can easily discard the theories of yesterday.

A second objection to the Anthropic Principle is that sentient life may have been able to evolve if the universe had been different, we just cannot imagine what that life and that universe would be like. It could have evolved completely different from what life is like in the present time and space. It might not be carbon-based, it might not even be atom-based, but as long as it could think the long run effects would have been the same -- sentient beings. Rolston's statement: If conditions were different "no galaxies, no stars, no life would have emerged. It would have been a universe forever unknowable by living creatures," is not necessarily true, it may have been unknowable to creatures that evolved to suit the present conditions, but maybe other creatures could have evolved in this strange and unimaginable universe. It is impossible to speculate what another universe could have looked like, and there are undoubtedly many, many other combinations of things that could have produced life, not just this specific one, it is just the only one we can imagine. In other words, life does not necessarily need galaxies and stars to evolve. It might be able to spring up just about anywhere, and under any circumstances, but we only have proof in one instance. "What we have is a bomb blast (the Big Bang) that is fine-tuned to produce a world that produces us, when almost any other imaginable blast would have yielded nothing," Rolston says.¹¹ The skeptic our puny brains (although possibly the most complex structures in existence anywhere) are not up to the task of imagining what another universe would be like. Again, other universes supporting life does not rule out God's existence. He could create them so they all had the capability of sustaining life -- constantly tinkering, trying to find the perfect being.

In earthbound terms, Rolston says that "It seems rather that life is an accident waiting to happen, because it is blueprinted into the chemicals."¹² The science of probability, too, supports this claim, saying that with all the amino-acids floating around in the primordial soup for so many millions of years, odds are that something like a random lightning strike would set them off down the path of life. Rolston goes on to say that everything seems just perfectly arranged for life to eventually form. An objection is that perhaps, though, it is the other way around. Perhaps life evolves all over the place (or in at least a relatively high number of places), using whatever materials it can. There is no evidence either way.