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.
Here it starts again. Everyone but the lilywhite scientists are liars.
And teach the Koran in Dearborn?
Complexity seems to be a problem. It should be well-known that a few lines of computer code can produce astonishingly complex results. The mind doesn't seem to be able to know every atom in the universe by name, but the mind can create categories and classifications for the few hundred possible kinds of atoms. Every star is different, yet the mind can create categories that reduce the infinite variety to a few types. The individual instances of living things are uncountable, but families and species bring order out of chaos. Cell processes can be singled out and the balance between them understood. Nature is infinite, but we produce order and pattern from nature. Complexity is an illusion to incomplete vision.
Here it starts again.
No, it *started* when Stingy Dog made a series of bizarre, disgusting, and false accusations. I find it quite significant that you didn't have a problem with *that*, but only with my objection to it.
Everyone but the lilywhite scientists are liars.
Nonsense, and that is yet *another* transparently false and disgusting accusation, like several others that have been made here. You guys are really covering yourselves with glory on this thread, aren't you?
But when someone does post blatant lies, I will feel no shame in pointing it out. I'm serving truth -- what are you serving?
Please explain why you folks are so fond of overblown broadside ad hominems, and so short on the willingness or ability to rationally discuss the actual topic in an informed manner.
Never mind, the reason is obvious.
The monkey wrench in the machine is the appearance of the creature in the universe. The fact that he is self-aware, and somehow or another is aware that he is self-aware is the stickler. He gives the universe firsthand knowledge of being, and not just existing. The creature gives it soul.
The Supreme Court has upheld that the first and fourteenth amendment are one of the liberties protected by the due-process clause in the fourteenth (and fifth) amendments. It meant that not only could Congress not enact a law respecting an establishment of religion, but neither could the State or local govt.
You might as well say that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy and therefore abortion has to be legal. I'll bet that's exactly what you believe. Are you sure you're in the right forum?
Good question I am beginning to wonder myself. I am against abortion, I am against tyranny, I am against anyone who wishes to impose their will on me or my children.
Having said that, I am against the state or local govt allowing religion to be taught in public schools. Why? Simple. I live in an area that has all sorts of religious backgrounds. If you allow the school board to teach a religion in school... it will probably NOT be the bible that is taught. I know you all mean well... but you really are going to make a mess of things if you try and turn this around.
Please let the thread progress, and stop trying to send it to the smokey backroom.
It was progressing into the "relentlessly bash the evolutionists as a group in the most vicious possible ways" direction. I was trying to stop that, in case you hadn't noticed. You were the one trying to help it continue in that direction. If you want to stop now, that would be greatly appreciated.
and stop trying to send it to the smokey backroom.
Oh look, another false and insulting accusation. Hard to break your habit, is it?
I have the menu du jour. No roast zeeber for you. thank you for your comments, have a nice day.
Let me ask you a question. If you lived in an area that had many, many Hindus would you be happy that Hunduism was being taught in your local school? "Good morning class, let's all do our AUM chant to Vishnu and Shiva...". Would it also be acceptable to teach the bible in that same school? Koran? No? You get my point? The reality is that within the last 45 years demographics has changed and unlike our European friends, it has not been a bad change either.
If Batrachian wants to go back 45 years or more that is his belief. I do not. I do not want anyone to teach any religion to my children in school. It isn't fair to my children and it is is not fair to the children of other faiths.
I have been asked by Batrachian if I really belong on this board. He accused me of being pro-abortion simply because I disagree with his argument. How he made that jump in logic is beyond me but it infuriates me. I never attacked him and I never made such claims about him.
Is it possible to believe 99% of what everyone else here says and yet be ostracized for one percent? What makes me so angry is that is Conservatism not inclusive to all faiths? Am I wrong? Has not Rush Limbaugh said on several occasions that it is? Do I need to go through all my MP3 downloads I get from Rush to find the exact quote(s)?
Again
The theory is not only useful, but essential to categorize life. A biology student could not make sense out of all the different species of plants and animals without this "tree".
Biologists take significant genetic and fossil evidence and look backwards--but when they try to take that same evidence and move forewards they start making claims that simply cannot be drawn necessarily or absolutely from that same evidence. They can make a plausible explanation--but that it all.
If I may make up a term (biologists do it, too)--I'd like to point at a notion about speciciation I'll call "fortuitous coherence"--rather like the coherent layers of light piled up to create lazer light. Fortuitous coherence is necessary to accomodate your theory of speciation--on top of fortuious accidents happening in fortuitous order. This is why duplicating speciation is so difficult in the laboratory. And when I worked in a lab many years ago, I was taught that "reproducibility" was a very high value when testing scientific theory.
In short, get that monkey chart outta my face!!
As far as the spiritual dimension, it bothers me not at all that things in the Bible stretch the credulity of scientists. They seem to think that a "fish" swallowing a man presents some unconquerable challenge to faith. They ought try dealing with the heroic little children in an oncology ward. Talk about something to test your faith--the Garden of Eden is child's play after that.
The fact of the demographic shift of the past 45 years is IMO an argument against compulsory tax-supported schools. In an attempt to respect everyone's values, they end up respecting nobody's values.
So... why would I bring up the clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in my argument? I also left out free speech, press, peaceable assembly and petitioning the gov't because they had nothing to do with my "separation of church and state" argument.
I am sorry I don't understand you, can you clarify?
Your post was in response to Batrachian, who advocated teaching the bible in school, if the locals choose. You pointed to the first amendment, but reading it proves that "separation of church and state" are not in the amendment.
Constitutionalist Conservative proved that your interpretation of the portion you favor is erroneous in his subsequent post:
"You do know, don't you, that some of the states that ratified the Constitution had established churches at the time of ratification, and that disestablishment was not expected of them (although they all eventually did)?"
Batrachian challenged your assertion directly. Since I realize that you will find words in the first amendment that simply aren't there, I accepted your premise and challenged you with the other half of the religious freedom protection in the first amendment.
Well if you are against compulsory tax-supported schools then why would you be for teaching the bible in them(or am I making a presumption?).
I now see your point so let me clarify. The Supreme Court ruled 1947 (er.. I think) that the 14th amendment applies the 1st amendment to the state and local governments in addition to Congress. Thus states and local governments also could not enact legislation that establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It in essense it secularized the schools among other things.
As for prohibiting the free exercise of religion, I do not see the connection.
Does this clarify it?
check back to see what evolves
In the same vein, I oppose English as a second language, and anything else that weakens the basic institutions of our nation and society. Call me a Western chauvinist if you want. I admit it.
I've said it before: If people where descended from cats, which are clean and pretty, we wouldn't oppose evolution so bitterly, but because we're descended from ugly, smelly apes that scratch themselves and masturbate in public, we resent the connection. I think many people's objection to evolution is neither religious or scientific. It's aesthetic.
I would ban Islam but the 1st Amendment forbids that. No, only our Bible would be taught, not the seditious works of fanatics and murderers.
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.