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.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

To not have read the Bible is to be culturally illiterate.

Oh, the horror, someone may actually pick up the King James version and get an education in what intense imagery in the English language really is!

–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_–_

And anyone who is slightly philosophically interested is depriving themselves if they don't read the Bhagavad Gita.

Well, it is quite long and would probably take a semester, but if it is a good translation with pictures and addends about some of the art and architecture it would be well worth the time spent. After all, we are talking about the world's largest democracy and a culture that produces some of the greatest engineering geniuses in the modern age...

[little jeremiah]

Or, of course, we can all be drones with blinders on. While perusing pornography and flinging excrement. (As on that other thread...)

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

More about Guillermo Gonzalez, from the DI:

Guillermo Gonzalez is an Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University. He received his Ph.D. in Astronomy in 1993 from the University of Washington. He has done post-doctoral work at the University of Texas, Austin and at the University of Washington and has received fellowships, grants and awards from such institutions as NASA, the University of Washington, Sigma Xi (scientific research society) and the National Science Foundation.

Gonzalez has extensive experience in observing and analyzing data from ground-based observatories, including work at McDonald Observatory, Apache Point Observatory and Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory. He is a world class expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones and a co-founder of the Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) concept. Astronomers and astrobiologists around the world are pursuing research based on my work on extra solar planets host stars, the GHZ, and several discoveries pertaining to stellar abundances.

Gonzalez has also published over sixty articles in refereed astronomy and astrophysical journals including Astronomy and Astrophysics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Astrophysical Journal and Solar Physics. His current research interests in astrobiology focus on the "Galactic Habitable Zone" which captured the October 2001 cover story of Scientific American, and the properties of the host stars of extra solar planets. He also is the co-author of the second edition of "Observational Astronomy" an advanced college astronomy textbook..

In 2004 he co-authored The Privileged Planet: How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery with Jay W. Richards.

[LiteKeeper]

What if the 7 days are really 7 days?

[shuckmaster]

What if 7 days to God is 7 billion years to us?That would mean he took 6 billion years to create earth and then took another billion years to rest.

[AndrewC]

Bonus link:

Yeah it's those religious zealots that are trying to force their religious views on us who hold back science.

In fact, Gonzalez’s stand impelled Hector Avalos, an associate professor of religious studies at Iowa State and faculty adviser to the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society, to spearhead an anti-ID petition at Iowa State. More than 120 faculty members have signed it.

[trashcanbred]

Let's forget talking about constitutionality... how about I feel very uncomfortable with state sanctioned religious teachings? How about I don't want anyone in a publicly paid school using my tax dollars to be telling MY children what to believe or not when it comes to "faith" or values. How about I feel I have the "right as a parent" to choose which faith I bring my children up in, not the school. Is that so hard for anyone to understand?

Why must the schools be a battleground all the time? What is wrong with everyone? I get mad when some Liberal teacher starts trying to fill my childrens' head that socialist programs are "good". Do you know how many times I have had to complain about that? Why in the heck can't everyone lay off trying to teach my children "THEIR VALUES". That is MY JOB not yours and not the Libs. In other words mind your own business about what my children learn in terms of faith or values, let me worry about that ok? Can you not understand why I feel this way? Can you not understand it is a matter of freedom of choice? For crying out loud that is why people came here in the first place, to exercise their religious choice as THEY see fit not the "government sanctioned" way. Can you see the light now friend?

My children are very good children. They do community work and they work very, very hard in school. They have a bright future ahead of them. My family on both my mother's and father's side has been in this country since at least the 1700's and I am proud of my heritage and my family history here. I am proud of the volunteer work I have done as well. We are all good people and as far as I am concerned this is my country and here we have been granted the freedom of choice. That goes for EVERY AMERICAN whether they were born here or they were just sworn in.

We have the freedom of religion and we have the freedom of our choice of religion. I do not understand why my children would need YOU to attempt to teach your version of it to them. I do not come to your school and try and teach your children to believe in something. I do not condone it one bit. So why do it to mine? Why?

I warn you, keep the state and local government away from teaching my children your proposed state sanctioned religion. I do not try and impose my beliefs on your children, do not dare do it to mine.

So bringing constitutionality back into it I FEEL that the 1st amendment applies to state and local governments as well and I will exercise my 2nd amendment rights to protect that. My words maybe harsh but when it comes to my children I am very protective of them. I think that is enough said.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

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".

It was never known to have that meaning until 1947 when FDR's communist stacked court ruled that athiesm was the State's official religion.

[dr_lew]

I warn you, keep the state and local government away from teaching my children your proposed state sanctioned religion.

The Lord's Prayer was not "state sanctioned religion" it was just the Lord's Prayer. BTW, this was in in New Providence, New Jersey - the heart of the New Jersey suburbs of New York. Just so you won't think this was like Kentucky, or something horrible like that. In fact I was in Kentucky not so very long ago, and heard the name of JESUS spoken RIGHT OUT LOUD in a HS commencement ceremony, and it was quite bracing, I assure you. "Where are the feds?" I thought. Nowhere to be found! Bracing!

I do not try and impose my beliefs on your children, do not dare do it to mine.

Or else, what?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Louis Foxwell]

Obviously your protection of your children does not extend to educating them. I have many friends who have made substantial sacrifices to educate their children away from public education programs. That is their and your right. Do not complain when public education is molded to fit the agenda of the majority. It must always be so. If that does not include you do something about it. Stop whining and start taking some initiative with your precious children.Sorry to be so harsh. Apparently that is your coin.

[AndrewC]

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".

Yeah, right.

The crier says, "God save the United States and this honorable court."

[trashcanbred]

Obviously your protection of your children does not extend to educating them. I have many friends who have made substantial sacrifices to educate their children away from public education programs. That is their and your right. Do not complain when public education is molded to fit the agenda of the majority. It must always be so. If that does not include you do something about it. Stop whining and start taking some initiative with your precious children.Sorry to be so harsh. Apparently that is your coin

1. Up until my last post I was not being harsh at all.

2. I do send my two children to private school. I am guardian of my nephew but he still goes to public. Sending two children to private school is rather expensive.

3. Whining... that is funny because that is what the liberal teachers say when I complain that they are pushing their agenda on my children. Is it whining to demand freedom? King George said the colonists "whining" too.

4. Your statement saying that the protection of my children does not extend to their education. Again that is what the Liberal teachers seem to think to. Everyone wants to inject their ideas and values into my childrens' heads.

[trashcanbred]

The crier says, "God save the United States and this honorable court."

That is a tradition and I have nothing against it.

[trashcanbred]

I do not try and impose my beliefs on your children, do not dare do it to mine. Or else, what?

What do you think? What would you do if Scientologists came around to your children at school and started teaching about Thetans and Xenu and reading from the L. Ron Hubbard book? I think you would do something about it right?

[Rebel_Ace]

Nephi,

Perhaps you do not have a handle on arguments based on logic and reason. I used the example "Flu" and "Chicken Soup" because I thought they would be conversational, and less abstract. Please allow me to make my point with more abstract symbols, illustrating the mistake of his statement.

If someone asserts:

Condition "E" causes "L"

to demonstrate the assertion is false, someone only has to show a case where Condition "E" occurs without "L".

Example: Here is "E" without "L", therefore "E" does not cause "L".

If this is too abstract for you, substitute the words "ECLIPSE" for "E" and "LIFE" for "L".

If you want me to discuss the subject, then I could go on spouting off other Planet/Moon combinations that produced Solar Eclipses, where no life is known to exist.

If you were observing the Sun from the surface of Jupiter (not very habitable), it can be eclipsed by Europa and Ganymede.

If you were observing the Sun from the surface of Saturn (not very habitable), it can be eclipsed by Titan and Iapetus.

I could produce many such lists, but from a logical argument perspective, I need only show ONE.

Since you did not seem to get that line of argument with the first example, I used a more conversational and non abstract example to illustrate the falsity of the the line of reasoning. In other words, the LOGIC is false REGARDLESS of the subject matter.

[jwh_Denver]

This is the point where my BS meter pegged.

Didn't seem right with me either. However, the moon's rotation is such that we on Earth only see exactly 1 face of it has to be math wise an astronomical figure of that occuring anywhere.

[Senator Bedfellow]

However, the moon's rotation is such that we on Earth only see exactly 1 face of it has to be math wise an astronomical figure of that occuring anywhere.

Actually not - it didn't start out that way, but over time it settles into a phase lock.

[GreenOgre]

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

I'd love to see this referenced in "The Origin of the Species". Another example of ID paranoia.

[jwh_Denver]

Any example elsewhere where this is occurring?