Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

Introduction: An Invitation to Search for Flaws in Creation

In the 67th chapter of the Quran (Al-Mulk), verses 3–4 present a vivid challenge to the reader to scrutinize the cosmos for any imperfection. The scripture declares: “[He] who created seven heavens in layers. You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency. So return your vision to the sky; do you see any breaks?” It then continues, “Then return your vision twice again. Your vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued.” In these lines, the ancient text invites a scientific mindset – encouraging repeated observation and critical examination of the universe. Look again and again, it says, and notice how no “breaks” or flaws can be found in the fabric of creation. The reader’s gaze, after such diligent inspection, is described as “humbled and fatigued” – overwhelmed by the immensity and perfection of it all.

Remarkably, modern cosmology echoes this sentiment of a faultless cosmic order. Over the past century, astronomers and physicists have indeed been “returning their vision” to the heavens with ever more powerful instruments, from telescopes peering at distant galaxies to particle colliders probing subatomic forces. Every time we look closer or farther, we uncover deeper layers of order – a universe governed by precise physical laws and constants. Rather than finding chaos or “inconsistency,” scientists have discovered that the existence of galaxies, stars, planets, and life hinges on a delicate balance of fundamental parameters. This modern discovery is often described as the “fine-tuning” of the universe. In a sense, what the Quranic verses poetically assert – an absence of flaw in the cosmos – finds a parallel in what science has revealed: a universe that appears remarkably “just right” in many ways for structure and life to emerge.

The Fine-Tuned Universe: Precision in Cosmic Parameters

The term “fine-tuning” in physics refers to the startling observation that many of the universe’s fundamental constants and initial conditions lie within very narrow ranges, without which a stable, life-permitting universe could not exist. There are roughly 20 or so basic numbers (physical constants) that define our cosmos – from the strength of gravity to the charge of the electron – and nobody knows why they have the specific values that they do . What scientists do know is that if even a single one of these numbers were tweaked slightly, the results would be disastrous for any kind of complex matter, let alone living beings . “Even a small change of the known values of those numbers would cause the world as we know it to disappear,” physicist Brian Greene has pointed out . As Astronomer Royal Martin Rees succinctly puts it, “Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine tuning.”   Below are just a few examples of these finely balanced cosmic parameters:

• Gravity (Gravitational Constant G): Gravity is by far the weakest of the fundamental forces, yet it governs the structure of the cosmos at large scales. If gravity were significantly stronger, stars would burn through their fuel much too quickly, living fast and dying young before planets (and life) could form. If gravity were instead a bit weaker, stars might never ignite their nuclear fuel at all, leaving a cold, dark universe with no starlight and no heavy elements beyond hydrogen . In either case, a universe with stars capable of supporting planets and life would likely be impossible .
• Strong Nuclear Force: This force binds protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus. It must be neither too weak nor too strong. If the strong force were only slightly stronger, it would cause nearly all hydrogen in the early universe to fuse into helium . Hydrogen is the most basic element, a fuel for stars and a component of water; without leftover hydrogen, stars like our Sun (which fuse hydrogen into helium over billions of years) couldn’t exist, and water – essential for life – might be exceedingly scarce. Conversely, if the strong force were a bit weaker, the nuclei of atoms would not hold together efficiently. The universe would be left with only hydrogen and perhaps helium, unable to form the heavier elements (carbon, oxygen, etc.) that make up planets and living organisms .
• Initial Expansion Rate (Big Bang Initial Conditions): The rate of expansion of the universe right after the Big Bang had to be extraordinarily precise. Theoretical physicist Alan Guth gives a striking example: one second after the Big Bang, the expansion rate and density of the universe needed to balance to within one part in 10^15 (one in a quadrillion) for galaxies to eventually form . If the universe had expanded even a tiny fraction faster at that moment (a difference appearing first at the 15th decimal place), matter would have been too diffusely spread for galaxies, stars, and planets to coalesce. If the expansion had been that tiny fraction slower, gravity would have overwhelmed expansion, causing a premature recollapse of the universe long before stars could light up . In Guth’s words, the values were “adjusted to each other just right” – a truly razor-thin margin .

These examples illustrate why scientists speak of the universe as being “fine-tuned” for the emergence of complex structures and life. The British astronomer Fred Hoyle, who was initially skeptical of any special cosmic purpose, was astonished by one such coincidence in nuclear physics (the energy levels of carbon) and remarked that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.” Famed physicist Paul Davies has similarly observed, “the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge … [it] would be total chaos if any of the natural constants were off even slightly.” And as Stephen Hawking summed up: “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” In other words, the more we scrutinize the cosmos – “returning our vision” again and again – the more we find an exquisite, seemingly intentional order rather than randomness. This profound precision has naturally led to deep questions: why do these life-critical numbers lie in the tiny range that permits a habitable universe? Could it be mere chance, or is there an underlying necessity or purpose?

The Cosmological Constant: A Tiny Force with Enormous Consequences

One of the most striking cases of cosmic fine-tuning involves the cosmological constant, often denoted by the Greek letter Λ (Lambda). This term, originally introduced by Einstein, corresponds to an intrinsic energy of empty space – what today we call dark energy. In essence, the cosmological constant controls the expansion rate of the universe on the largest scales. Observations show that our universe’s expansion is accelerating due to this dark energy, which in numerical terms is incredibly small but nonzero. How small? Astoundingly small. When physicists first calculated the expected vacuum energy from quantum theory, the result overshot the actual observed value by a mind-boggling factor – about 10^120 (a million trillion trillion trillion… up to 120 zeros) . In other words, the theoretical expectation was 10^120 times higher than the measured cosmological constant. This is often described as an error of 120 orders of magnitude, dubbed “the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics” . To put that in perspective, one article quips: that’s like expecting something to weigh 5 pounds and finding it actually weighs 5 × 10^120 pounds ! The embarrassment of this huge discrepancy has made the cosmological constant problem one of the most pressing puzzles in physics . “It suggests there’s something missing in our story,” admits physicist Antonio Padilla, speaking to how standard theory provides no easy explanation for such extreme fine-tuning .

From a cosmic design standpoint, however, this tiny value of Λ is precisely what makes our universe hospitable. If the cosmological constant were much larger (as theory naively permits), space would have undergone such a violent outward acceleration that matter would never clump into galaxies – stars and planets could not form in the first place . On the other hand, if Λ were negative or too much smaller, it could have induced a rapid recollapse of the cosmos before life had a chance to arise . Our universe sits in a goldilocks zone: the cosmological constant is positive but extraordinarily slight – enough to eventually push galaxies apart, but not enough to disrupt the formation of those galaxies to begin with . In fact, years before dark energy was empirically discovered in 1998, physicist Steven Weinberg had predicted that any observers in the universe should find Λ to be small; otherwise, in a universe with a larger Λ, there simply would be no observers around to measure it. Why is the cosmological constant so small yet positive? This remains, as one 2024 science piece noted, a “perplexing question” at the heart of modern cosmology . For now, the tiny nonzero cosmological constant stands as a spectacular confirmation that nature’s constants are indeed delicately set – one might even say “finely tuned” – to allow a stable, life-supporting cosmos.

The Anthropic Principle: Coincidence, Providence, or Multiverse?

Facing the reality of a finely tuned universe, scientists and philosophers have proposed different ways to make sense of it. One scientific-philosophical framework is known as the Anthropic Principle. In simple terms, the anthropic principle states that we observe the universe to be as it is because only a universe compatible with conscious observers (like ourselves) could ever be observed in the first place . In other words, out of all possible universes with random physical laws, we obviously find ourselves in one that happens to allow life; if it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here to wonder about it. This idea comes in different forms. The “Weak Anthropic Principle” is essentially the above tautology: our universe must permit life, because we are here. The “Strong Anthropic Principle” goes a step further, suggesting that the universe’s laws appear fine-tuned on purpose for life, implying some deeper reason or design.

Invoking the anthropic principle can feel unsatisfying or circular – it doesn’t explain why the fundamental constants have the values they do, it just notes that we couldn’t see them any other way. Yet, it has had predictive power: Weinberg’s reasoning about the cosmological constant’s value was essentially anthropic (a larger Λ would prevent galaxies and hence observers), and his prediction was borne out by observation . To make the anthropic explanation more concrete, many scientists turn to the idea of a multiverse. If there are countless other universes or distant regions of reality, each with different random settings for their physical constants, then it is not surprising that at least one universe turned out to have the right combination for life . In this view, the fine-tuning of our universe is a kind of cosmic lottery win – improbable, yes, but if enough tickets are drawn (enough universes exist), one of them was bound to get “lucky.” Our universe is the lucky one, simply because only the lucky ones get observers. As one science writer put it, “If countless universes exist, each with different physical constants, it is unsurprising that one would permit life.” This multiverse scenario might demystify fine-tuning without invoking a Creator: all outcomes happen somewhere, and we inevitably find ourselves in a universe that hits the life jackpot.

However, the multiverse and anthropic reasoning remain controversial. By their very nature, other universes (if they exist) would be almost impossible to detect directly, which means the multiverse idea teeters on the edge of metaphysics rather than empirical science. “The multiverse remains speculative,” notes one overview, leaving the anthropic principle “on shaky ground” because it’s not easily testable . As Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg joked, “A physicist talking about the anthropic principle runs the same risk as a cleric talking about pornography” – an awkward topic that can raise eyebrows . In other words, many scientists are wary of anthropic explanations, fearing that they are too quick to accept our universe as a special case without a deeper physical theory. Critics argue that using the anthropic principle can be a conversation-stopper – a way of saying “we got lucky, end of story.” They prefer to seek a more fundamental reason within the laws of nature as to why these constants have the values they do.

Interestingly, recent research is attempting to bridge the gap between anthropic reasoning and testable science. In late 2024, physicists Nemanja Kaloper and Alexander Westphal proposed an innovative way to potentially test the anthropic principle by looking at the properties of a hypothetical particle (the axion) that could tie together the value of dark matter and dark energy . Their idea is that if certain delicate relationships between cosmic parameters (like the amount of dark matter) can be observed, it might lend support to anthropic explanations – essentially checking if our universe’s “coincidences” follow a pattern expected under a multiverse scenario. Such work is speculative but represents exactly the kind of “look again” approach that science encourages. Researchers keep “returning their vision” to the problem of fine-tuning from new angles, unwilling to simply accept it as a given. Whether the answer lies in a multiverse, a deeper single-universe theory, or something else, the fact remains that our universe is special in its life-friendly order. As physicist Paul Davies wrote, “the impression of design is overwhelming” when we contemplate these numerous cosmic “coincidences” . That impression might arise from a divine hand, an ensemble of universes, or principles we have yet to discover – questions that venture beyond science – but the science itself has made one thing clear: the universe we inhabit operates within an extraordinarily narrow and remarkably stable set of parameters.

Conclusion: Humbled by the Cosmos

After journeying through modern cosmological findings, we find ourselves in a state very much like the “humbled and fatigued” gaze described in Quran 67:4. The more closely we examine the universe, the more we are awed by its coherence. Our telescopes and theories peer across billions of light-years and delve into subatomic realms, and everywhere we look we see a profound orderliness – from the elegant choreography of galaxies down to the delicate balance of forces in an atom. It is as if the universe “knew we were coming,” arranging just the right conditions for stars to shine and life to emerge. This convergence of scientific insight and a sense of purposeful order can be profoundly spiritual in its impact. Without venturing into theological interpretation, we can appreciate that an ancient verse speaking of a flawless creation resonates strongly with our scientific understanding today. Both perspectives urge us toward wonder and reflection.

In a dark night far from city lights, when one looks up at the sky scattered with countless stars, one might recall the Quranic invitation: “look again… do you see any flaw?” Indeed, with each new discovery, our sense of “flawlessness” in the cosmos only deepens. To a general reader, the message is accessible and uplifting: our universe is not a haphazard chaos but a wondrous cosmic tapestry woven with precision. Whether one stands in a spirit of faith or simply as an inquiring human, the effect is similar – a heart moved to awe. Science, in uncovering the fine-tuned structure of reality, offers us not a cold mechanism but a grand cosmic perspective that can inspire humility. We are small in the face of the galaxies, and yet intimately connected to them – made of the same finely tuned stardust. Thus, blending the scientific and the spiritual, we end as we began: with eyes lifted to the heavens, filled with reverence. In the precise glow of the stars and the silent harmony of natural laws, one cannot help but sense what the ancient verse intimates – a “Most Compassionate” wisdom behind the cosmos’ perfect order, or at the very least, a deep meaningfulness in the fact that we are here to witness it. Our search for flaws has only revealed deeper beauty, leaving us humbled by the universe’s fine-tuned splendor.

Sources:

• Quran 67:3–4 (Translation by Saheeh International) 
• Greene, B. et al. – On the unknown rationale for fundamental constants 
• Rees, M. – Comment on pervasive examples of fine-tuning 
• Guth, A. – Fine-tuning of early expansion rate (interview quote) 
• Hawking, S. – Observation on life-permitting values of constants 
• Davies, P. – “Knife-edge” balance of cosmic conditions (Interview) 
• Scientific American – “Cosmological Constant is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem” (M. Ross, 2021) 
• The Debrief – “Is the Universe Designed for Us? Testing the Anthropic Principle” (T. McMillan, 2024) 
• New Space Economy – “Anthropic Principle: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?” (2025) 
• Hoyle, F. and Davies, P. – Reflections on apparent design in the universe 

Archives