ID [Intelligent Design] Opens Astronomer’s Mind to Universe’s Surprises

Discovery Institute ^ | November 10, 2005 | Julia C. Keller

[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.

[Mamzelle]

I've told you my objection--it's simply wrongheaded.

But if we ever have an definitive for the origin and "progress" of species, it won't come from biologists. They just think too small. The answers, if we get them, will come from physicists.

Biologists just want to look at the double helix, and it doesn't cross their minds what might happen if that double helix could cross time and space.

[Batrachian]

"I've told you my objection--it's simply wrongheaded."

You know, a lot of people dislike sushi although they've never tried it. Read his books. They're fascinating. After all, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Rebel_Ace]

Nephi,

You said, "...but your arrogant dismissal of his point doesn't hide the complexity of aligning the axis of the sun/earth orbit and the moon/earth orbit and the distance of the sun, moon and earth required to create the solar eclipse..."

Let's say we were discussing something like The Flu. I look around and notice lot's of people with the flu having chicken soup. I then make this assertion:

"The same conditions that cause Chicken Soup, also make the flu possible."

Someone with a clearer head might disagree, and in order to prove my assertion false, he need only show ONE instance where chicken soup appears without the flu. So this person says in rebuttal to my assertion:

"They served chicken soup yesterday in the school cafeteria, and no one there had the flu. Chicken soup conditions seem to have nothing to do with flu occuring."

So, to counter the assertion that the conditions that make Solar Eclipses possible, I showed an example that illustrated that planet/moon eclipse alignments also occur on barren, frozen planets. His assertion is demonstratably false. Even worse, it is demonstratably false using no more than high school level astronomical information.

"Arrogant"? I prefer the term "Colorful".

[trashcanbred]

What I meant was that I think the Bible should be taught in schools. It's one of the founding documents of our culture and part of an important institution in our society. Religions outside of our Judeo-Christian heritage would not be welcome in schools.

I got the gist that was what you felt. If you would please not make claims against me like the pro-abortion comment, I would like to ask you some questions.

If religions outside of our Judeo-Christian heritage is not welcomed in public school... are they welcomed at all in our country? Should we send the PhD's from other countries who really do add to our economy packing? And what about the people who were never brought up with a faith? Should we send them packing too? Because if you try and force their children to read the Bible in school, you will in essence be doing just that.

I live in NJ and I really doubt that making some of my Jewish neighbors read the Bible is going to go over very well. In turn I would not want them to impose the Talmud Bavli onto my children, would you? That is where I believe the Judeo part falls off.

And speaking of interpretation, would that not be an issue given all the various denominations that exist in our country? Which interpretation of the Bible would you teach in school or would it be "majority decides"? If so what happens if the majority changes over time?

And in Utah they would probably decide to teach primarily from the Book of Mormon. For all of those non-Mormons living and working in Utah with families that might pose a problem. What happens if we get some pro-Scientologists on the school board? Do we start reading from the works of L. Ron Hubbard?

In my humble opinion this is going to cause lots of problems. All the different denominations and religions have their own churches where they may go and interpret the Bible (or Talmud or Book of Mormon) in their own way. If these churches are doing their job properly, why is it so important to teach the Bible in public school? Cannot public schools be a place where children of all faiths come to learn, even if the child have no religion at all?

So... because of the reasons I have outlined I respectfully, sincerely disagree with you. Thank you.

[King Prout]

a ping in passing

[Dimensio]

The ultimate intent of the evolutionistoids is, of course, the killing of God,

Creationist lie #173: everyone who accepts the theory of evolution as valid science is an atheist.

[Liberty Wins]

"If these churches are doing their job properly, why is it so important to teach the Bible in public school?"

The history of our country cannot be taught in an objective and accurate way without including the Judeo-Christian influences. Do you agree we can't teach children about the Pilgrims without including the reason they came here and who they gave thanks to at the first Thanksgiving feast? Some teachers have actually taught their students that the Pilgrims were thanking the Indians.

[Dimensio]

I've said it before: If people where descended from cats, which are clean and pretty, we wouldn't oppose evolution so bitterly



Couldn't resist.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You guys are really covering yourselves with glory on this thread, aren't you?"

They aren't doing themselves any favors on this thread either:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520711/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

[Batrachian]

I know that my opinions are controversial, even among some conservatives, but I stand by them. I'm not too concerned about people of other religions being left out. That's their problem. I would only point out that separation of church and state is not a constitutional doctrine, but a political one. It has been foisted on us by liberals who seek to eliminate Christianity from public life, especially among children, because it's a foundational institution of our country, and they want to destroy our country. I want to fight that.

I admit, though, that those who favor separation seem to have won the day. I hope that won't always be true.

[trashcanbred]

I do not disagree with learning about the different religions who came to the new world looking for the freedom to practice their religion. I do disagree with having something along the lines of a bible study course in public school. The person I was responding to I believed feels we should because of the following statement they made: "Religions outside of our Judeo-Christian heritage would not be welcome in schools. "

Does that clarify it a little?

[trashcanbred]

I'm not too concerned about people of other religions being left out.

Maybe the people in the area you live all belong to the same faith. Do you not call anyone else who is of another faith "friend"? I do and I could not do that to them nor would I allow them to do that to me. It isn't my way to impose anything on anyone else.

Maybe it is my opinions that are controversial I do not know....

[Batrachian]

"Do you not call anyone else who is of another faith "friend"?"

Actually, I never polled my friends about what faith they belong to. I can only guess. I only know that all my friends are conservatives. Everything I've said to you is based on my political beliefs. I'm not a religious zealot at all.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

And the way evos behave on the FR board lead me to believe that it is priesthood they are after--they want to preach what they want to preach and deal with no heresies. Watching them here over the past few years, looking at their posting histories (they generally post to few threads other than evo-crevo issues) and their arrogant tone--they don't even seem to be interested in conservatism itself, just in having the opportunity to find conservative Christians and rattle their cages.

Yep.

You know what is even funny about it? The “Big Bang” theory was first advanced by a Jesuit astronomer!

Both the “Big Bang” and the theory of evolution (the ‘origin of species’) are based on an idea of a singularity. Both are admissions the universe and life itself are immaculate conceptions!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

If you lived in an area that had many, many Hindus would you be happy that Hunduism was being taught in your local school?

I wouldn't have a problem with teaching the literary value of their sacred texts, they are quite poetic and entertaining. (Sanskrit is quite the ideal scientific language.)

Only the required group practice of the religion would not be welcomed, but individuals should be allowed to do so freely if that is their chosen path, outside of classroom instruction.

Now, if you want to introduce Islam; that is not a religion, that is a criminal organization who recruits inside of state and federal penitentiaries and blows Atheist, Jewish, Christian, Hindi and Buddhist people up all over the world...

[Nephi]

Let's say we were discussing something like The Flu.

Can't you make your point by discussing the subject instead of flu and chicken soup?

I am intrigued by Gonzalez's "solar eclipse" example and I wonder what the heck he means by it. It doesn't seem that you know either, but that didn't stop you from dismissing it. I'd be truly impressed if you could explain what Gonzalez's example refers to and why you disagree.

If you don't know, then that would explain why you would resort to your flu and chicken soup analogy.

[dr_lew]

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.

There is an interesting analogy between the Constitution and the Bible. You and liberals ( with whom you are in accord on this issue ) are like Catholics and the SCOTUS is like the Vatican. You say that the Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS says it says.

Conservatives, or reactionaries ( as they are under the present circumstances ) are like Protestants, in that they insist on reading and interpreting the Constitution by their own lights.

I side with the latter. The interpretation which says that State and local governments are restrained from action in the same way that Congress is restrained stands the meaning of the Bill of Rights on its head. It converts the federal government into a totalitarian state, which status in truth it has reached. Totalitarianism is "the concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority" i.e. the SCOTUS.

This is in fact the significance of this forum's title. It's a radical slogan that advocates the freedom of the citizenry under a republic, notwithstanding the acquiesence of yourself and others to its abolishment.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for pinging me.

The very essence of the Vedic literatures is free will. Limited by karma, of course. Bhakti yoga is the highest level of God realization, and it is founded entirely on love, the essence of which is freedom. We are free to choose our direction; but once chosen, must follow the tracks we've laid down, so to speak. But every moment gives a new choice.

Personally, if there have to be public schools, my viewpoint is that every religion (within reason; for instance, Papua New Guinea witchcraft - no, other than as anthropological anomaly) should be taught, not as proselytization, but perhaps by a practicing member of that religion. Bring 'em all in, one at a time, for a Comparative Religion course. What would be the harm? Just from a cultural point of view. Why should kids (probably middle or high school kids) not know the religions of the world?

When I first read the Bible, I couldn't believe how much of it I had heard before. It's part of our cultural heritage, whether we want to believe it is divinely inspired or not. To not have read the Bible is to be culturally illiterate. And anyone who is slightly philosophically interested is depriving themselves if they don't read the Bhagavad Gita.

[The Red Zone]

By itself of course it doesn't, but it's one of the things that helps.

[dr_lew]

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.

Here you express the basic liberal fallacy - that the Constitution is a template for the imposition of every liberal ideal by the SCOTUS.

When I was a kid we said the Lord's Prayer in school every day. Was this teaching religion? We didn't think so. In fact, the principal effect of this practice was to highlight the schism between Protestants and Catholics, since the latter omitted the last lines, and always sat up and looked around haughtily while the Protestants feigned intense piety. Jews? My sister knew one.

It's hard even to imagine all this anymore. I nice question: Was it unconstitutional at the time, except that nobody had figured this out? Or did it become unconstitutional with the "school prayer" decision.