Posted on 11/12/2005 8:19:25 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
In 1995, a solar eclipse he saw in India made him think about Earth’s unique place in the universe — a place designed to be able to study such phenomenon. Though there was no “Eureka!” moment, Gonzalez felt strongly that chance couldn’t explain Earth’s privileged position. And last year, Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, another fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, published The Privileged Planet.
Currently, Gonzalez has been busy fighting intellectual battles on campus (See sidebar.) and continuing his own research on the Galactic Habitable Zone — the part of the galaxy that seems to have the right conditions to support life: conditions that all together, he says, are very rare.
Taking time out of his astrobiology studies and stepping out of the debate for a moment, Gonzalez talks about why he is an intelligent design astronomer and how that lets him travel in an unbounded universe.
What is your definition of intelligent design?
Intelligent design is the study and search for objective evidence of design in nature. It holds that certain features of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause.
When did you start thinking about intelligent design?
It’s hard to pin a precise year on it. I gradually became interested in the idea of possible evidence of design in nature, in astronomy in particular. I was interested in reading about fine-tuning.
The fine-tuning argument basically is that the concept of physics requires being set within certain narrow ranges for the possibility of life in the universe. And so fine-tuning makes this a very low-probability universe.
And with the anthropic principle, you have to come to terms with that observation.
Basically there are two camps: One camp says that it’s just an observer selection effect. And we’ve just selected this universe out of a vast ensemble of habitable universes. The other camp says that intelligent design is the best explanation, since we have no evidence for any such vast ensemble of universes.
How do use intelligent design in your research?
My argument that I wrote up with Jay Richards we presented in our book, The Privileged Planet; it’s a completely original argument. We present the discovery that I made around the late ’90s, where I noticed that those places in the universe that are most habitable for life also offer the best opportunities for scientific discovery. That seems completely unexplainable in terms of the usual naturalistic causes. So, intelligent design is the only alternative.
We actually drew that out a bit and further implied that the universe is designed for scientific discovery. So science is built into the fabric of the universe from the very beginning.
What is the most compelling example of design in the universe?
The first example I thought of was the solar eclipse. The conditions you need to produce a solar eclipse also make Earth a habitable planet.
The other one that really intrigues me is being able to detect microwave background radiation. Microwave background radiation is the leftover radiation from that early epoch when the universe was much hotter and denser. It was the deciding observation between the steady-state theory and the big-bang theory. Our ability to discover it and then measure it subsequently is very sensitive to our location in the galaxy, and also the time and history of the universe that we live in.
What does using ID allow you to do that current scientific inquiry doesn’t allow for?
I asked and continue to ask kinds of questions that a naturalist wouldn’t ask. For example, if we were living on a different planet, or around a different star, or in a different place in the galaxy, how would things look different, and what kind of scientific progress would we have?
It’s a perfectly reasonable set of questions — it’s just a set of questions that hasn’t occurred to anybody else to ask. I think it’s because they haven’t been open to the possibility of design, or getting an affirmative answer, which would point to design.
How would you construct a research program around this?
I could imagine having a student do a Ph.D. thesis asking the question: What is the best time in the history of the universe to be a cosmologist? They can modify that using the standard cosmological models. They can find out if we are, in fact, living at the best time, or if it’s a distant time from now. It’ll be interesting to find out the answer to that.
How does your faith affect your research?
I am a Christian. I’ve had a strong intuition from a very early age that there had to be something behind all this.
It makes me open to discovering the possibility of design, but I don’t impose my faith on the data. I’m constantly reminding myself of my own personal biases so I don’t inject them into research. But at the same time, I have a very open mind to seeing evidence that may not fit into the nice, neat categories provided by naturalism.
Why does science need the concept of intelligent design?
It’s not something that a priori needs the concept of intelligent design. Here’s something I stumbled upon and I discovered this pattern in the universe. It just screams out for another kind of explanation. It’s not that I’m saying that the universe must display evidence of design, or I must be able to find something to fit that. I stumbled upon this and I can’t explain it in the usual terms.
How does this alternate explanation of design in the universe lend itself to theology?
I’d like to try to keep my work in intelligent design separate from discussions of the implications of intelligent design. As an ID researcher, I know my limitations. You can say, “Okay, I think I’ve identified design in the universe, and here is the evidence.” And that’s it. I can’t identify the designer uniquely.
If you want to partake into the theological discussion, let’s bring in theological elements into it. Then it becomes broader than intelligent design.
I can imagine expanding this discussion, writing a second book just discussing the implications — bringing in aesthetics, philosophy and theology, which are less objective. But in our book, we wanted to keep the theology separate from the science.
Why do you need an intelligent >design paradigm to explain the natural world?
As a scientist looking out at nature, I want to be open to possible evidence that a designer exists. If I say ahead of time, “Well, I’m not going to allow the universe to present objective evidence,” then you’re never going to be open to it. It’s like the SETI [Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence] researchers who say, “The probability of life in the universe may be small, but if we don’t look we’ll never know.”
At the beginning of the 20th century, virtually all scientists believed the universe was eternal. Then came the shock of the big-bang theory with the evidence of the expansion of the universe. They had to actually consider the possibility the universe had a beginning. So, the universe can surprise us. I would rather be more open to the possibility of being surprised.
Is this the suggestion you would give the scientific community about intelligent design?
Scientists, who may not even be design-friendly, may stumble upon design evidence, and I’m just hopeful that they’re open-minded enough to just present it and admit that they stumbled upon it.
Julia C. Keller is the science editor of Science and Theology News.
"That would mean he took 6 billion years to create earth and then took another billion years to rest."
...then I hope tomorrow morning is also Monday morning for God.
That is odd. I did post some Puritan laws that were rather harsh. Was I wrong? You believe 15th century Mass Puritan laws were non-draconian?
why is it you make these statements about me yet do not add a shred of content to back them up? Tell me did they not hang Mary Dyer? Were other Quakers put to death?
And remind the audience of some of Cotton Mather's writings.
You mentioned words, namely, "separation of church and state", which are not in the Constitution. They were mentioned along with the word "wall" in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church. That is the origin that is the connection.
I posted images of books that were used in United States schools and contained religious references including the Lord's Prayer. They were used up until the twentieth century. They are evidence your "(wall) of separation of church and state" did not exist then. Was I wrong?
I never quoted Thomas Jefferson nor discussed a wall. Maybe you have been replying to the wrong post.
|
The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. Also known as "separation of church and state". If you ever go to Phila, please... please... please... go to the new Constitution center and educate yourself. Serious... 12 posted on 11/12/2005 11:59:46 AM EST by trashcanbred (Anti-social and anti-socialist)
|
Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation comment. Which is the genesis of the term you used.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
You also gave an example of laws enacted during the 1600's in Massachussetes. That was what I was responding to. I also never said anything about the lack of a separation of church and state in the past. So... I did not debate you on that particular point. Perhaps it was because I brought up the fact that I did not mind God being mentioned in the opening of the Supreme Court. I said it was tradition and did not impose anything upon me and my family. Forcing bible study classes in public school however is very different.
So having said that, do you feel separation of church and state is wrong? I do not and that was another reason I remarked upon the law you quoted from 15th century Massachussettes, that:
It was the intent of the colonists that all children should learn to read and in 1642 Puritan Massachusetts passed a law stating this. They believed that an inability to read was Satan's attempt to keep people from the Scriptures
You brought this up in a post and I felt it was bad error in judgement on your part to do so. The Puritans of Massachusettes during the 1600's were excessive in integrating their laws with the church. There was no separation of church and state and laws at that time were excessively harsh on Puritans and non-Puritans alike. Basically, non-Puritans had to get out or face some serious punishment. That was why I brought up the Quaker law, and Mary Dyer, as an example. Again, you cited that as an example of tradition and I again say it is a very bad example to choose from.
My only other question is, why do you want the Bible to be read in public school? If what Jefferson said is true, that "religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god" then why push the Bible on people who may not believe in it? Why public school? I mean, can you not understand that it is in essence pushing Christianity on someone who may not be Christian or who is not being brought up as one?
I mean, with all due respect, are you trying to convert people? Don't be mad for me asking because I have tried to understand this from every angle and I cannot for the life of me come up with any other reason. From my standpoint, religion was taught in my school based simply on understanding the different religions of the world. It did not impose any religion whatsoever.
Yep a law that said children should be taught to read. You seem to have a big problem with that. My point is that the Constitution says nothing about a separation of church and state. It does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". School boards are not Congress, and, frankly, Congress has no business in the local school district.
Yes, in the usage of that term now advanced. I agree with George Washington.
George Washington's farewell address 1796
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. I'll address your other questions later.
This is further demonstrated by the fact that it took you 240 words to say what you could've said more clearly and less arrogantly with about 80 words.
Does the following phrase remind you of anyone?
"He who knows that he knows, doesn't really know. He who knows that he doesn't know, knows."
Wow... I never said that nor did ever imply that at all. Either you have a strange interpretation of the English language or you are attacking my character. The 15th century laws I said I have a problems with was state run religion that advocates killing Quakers. I asked you if you did... you could have said you didn't like it either. Instead you dodge the question... what am I to think about you?
Congress has no business in the local school district.
And neither does the church. I asked you a direct question, do you want to convert my children. Again... no answer. What am I to think? Be honest.
Well, that was the only law I referred to and you ran off on some tangent about Quaker persecution. If you had not run off with a red herring you wouldn't be defending yourself.
I told you I would answer your questions later. You have given a great example of why I did that. Now I have a great desire to let you eat static. But here are some observations you might make about my posts on this thread.
The reason the Moon keeps one face to the Earth (its rotation on its axis matches the period of its orbit) is it is tidally locked to the Earth. This tidal locking will eventually cause the Earth and Moon to keep one face to each other.
Here is a more in depth explanation. The total angular momentum of the earth moon system, which is spin angular momentum plus the orbital angular momentum, is constant. (The Sun plays apart also) Friction of the oceans caused by the tides is causing the Earth to slow down a tiny bit each year. This is approximately two milliseconds per century causing the moon to recede by about 4 centimeters per year. As the Earth slows down, the Moon must recede to keep the total angular momentum a constant. In other words as the spin angular momentum of the earth decreases, the lunar orbital angular momentum must increase. Here is an interesting side note. The velocity of the moon will slow down as the orbit increases.
Another example of tidal locking is the orbit period and rotation of the planet Mercury. What is interesting about this one is that instead of a 1:1 synchronization where Mercury would keep one face to the Sun at all times, it is actually in a 2/3:1 synchronization. This is due to the High eccentricity of its orbit.
There also can be more than one body “locked” to each other. Lets take a look at the moon Io. Io is approximately 1.04 times the size of the moon. There is a resonance between Io, Ganymede, and Europa. Io completes four revolutions for every one of Ganymede and two of Europa. This is due to a Laplace Resonance phenomenon. A Laplace Resonance is when more than two bodies are forced into a minimum energy configuration.
And finally a look at the asteroid belt:
The asteroid belt has an estimated total combined mass of less than 1 tenth of the Earth’s moon. Jupiter has a profound effect on the asteroid belt. Since Jupiter has a semimajor axis of 5.2 AU (one AU is the distance from the Sun to the Earth) it has an orbital period of 11.86 years. Since the asteroids are not all at the same distance from the sun, some of them will have an orbital period of one half of Jupiter. This puts that asteroid in a 2:1 orbital resonance with Jupiter. The result of this resonance is gaps called Kirkwood’s gaps. So here is the rub; why did not these asteroids for a planet? The reason is the gravitational force of Jupiter. It perturbs the asteroids giving them random velocities relative to each other. Another effect of both Jupiter and the Sun on the asteroid belt is a group of asteroids that both precede and follow Jupiter in its orbit by 60 degrees. These asteroids are known as the Trojans.
Since we are now talking about orbiting bodies, let us digress just a wee bit further and briefly talk about orbits:
All orbits move in ellipses, however, there are different sizes and shapes of the ellipse an orbiting body can sweep out. We use the term Semi-Major Axis to measure the size of an orbit. It is the distance from the geometric center of the ellipse to either the apogee or perigee (The highest (apo) and the lowest (peri)). Apoapsis is a general term for the greatest radial distance of an Ellipse as measured from a Focus. Apoapsis for an orbit around the Earth is called apogee, and apoapsis for an orbit around the Sun is called aphelion.
Periapsis is a general term for the smallest radial distance of an Ellipse as measured from a Focus. Periapsis for an orbit around the Earth is called perigee, and periapsis for an orbit around the Sun is called perihelion.
The terms Gee and Helios comes from the Greek words “Ge” (earth) and “Helios” (Sun) respectively.
There is one more point to be made about eclipses, and I can't believe the ignorance (willful?) on the part of some on this thread about it:
Earth would not be habitable without a moon that could elipse the sun.
The point is not that there must merely be some other astronomical object to eclipse the sun, nor is it that having a moon to eclipse the sun a priori means that there would be life, but that there would almost certainly be no life without such a moon. The Moon stabilizes the Earth's axial tilt. Were the moon much smaller in mass (or much farhter away, therefore contributing a much smaller component to the Earth-Moon angular momentum), *in other words, a moon that also would not eclipse the Sun*, the Earth's axial tilt would oscillate much more, over very short periods of geological time, as Mars' does. The orbital tilt of Mars oscillates on the order of 40 degrees in a period on the order of thousands of years, whereas the Earth's axial nutation (oscillation of axial tilt) is a mere 2.5 degrees. It is our close, massive moon that causes this. Such a moon does not necessitate life, but without it such life would not be possible. That, if nothing else, is the meaning behind the "eclipse" argument. It is no stretch to say that we owe our very existence to our Moon.
BTTT
There is one other point I'd like to make about the Moon. I make no statements about ID per se, but only to illustrate just how lucky we are to have our Moon in its present form. The prevailing theory of how the Earth came to acquire the Moon involves a collision of some other astronomical body with the Earth, rather than through gravitational capture. The reasoning is that gravitational capture would much more likely result in a moon in a highly elliptical orbit, rather than the almost perfectly circular one it has. Also, it is thought that, were the Moon gravitationally captured, its orbital plane could be in any direction, rather than 5 degrees from the Earth's equatorial plane as it is. It also would have had a 50 percent chance of orbiting in a direction opposite to the Earth's direction of rotation. All of these factors withstanding, most everyone feels that the Moon came about as a result of a collision.
A few years ago a study was performed that involved computer simulations of impacts to try to determine the exact conditions that gave rise to the Moon. Many runs were taken, with variations in the mass of the two bodies, variations in velocity, and variations in angle of incidence with the Earth. Nearly all of them resulted in the formation of two much smaller moons, moons that also would not have stabilized the Earth's axial tilt. In fact, the only scenario that resulted in a single, large moon at the correct distance from the Earth was one in which the Earth was only just grazed by the colliding object.
So not only does our Moon make the Earth habitable, it is also highly unusual. A slight variation in incident angle in one direction would have resulted in a miss (and therefore no moon at all), and a variation in the other direction would have given us two small moons that would have not made our climate habitable. Say what you will about ID, but in any case we are indeed *very* fortunate.
Oh... I am sorry this whole post was about teaching children to read the bible in school. I am against it, you are for it. I asked do you want to convert my children because I wanted to know why you want the bible read to children who may not be Christian. It is a simple question.
As for tangents, you tried to validate your argument by quoting a Puritan law about bible reading. I brought up examples that Puritan laws are not exactly acceptable practice in modern day society. I asked if you agreed. Not a tangent.
AS for the imaginary separation of church and state, argue that with the 1947 ruling of the Supreme Court where they voted it was due to the application of the 1st amendment to the 14th. At this point we should not even argue it.
Put aside all of that and I ask you again, why do you want to teach the bible in school to students who's parents may not be bring up their children Christian? I did not accuse you of attempting to convert them... if you go back and read my post I asked this question multiple times and I got no answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.