'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution & intelligent design

Charles Townes is the Nobel Prize Physics winner whose pioneering work led to the maser and later the laser.

The University of California, Berkeley interviewed him on his 90th birthday where they talked about evolution, intelligent design and the meaning of life.

BERKELEY – Religion and science, faith and empirical experiment: these terms would seem to have as little in common as a Baptist preacher and a Berkeley physicist. And yet, according to Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor in the Graduate School, they are united by similar goals: science seeks to discern the laws and order of our universe; religion, to understand the universe's purpose and meaning, and how humankind fits into both.

Where these areas intersect is territory that Townes has been exploring for many of his 89 years, and in March his insights were honored with the 2005 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities. Worth about $1.5 million, the Templeton Prize recognizes those who, throughout their lives, have sought to advance ideas and/or institutions that will deepen the world's understanding of God and of spiritual realities.

Townes first wrote about the parallels between religion and science in IBM's Think magazine in 1966, two years after he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for his groundbreaking work in quantum electronics: in 1953, thanks in part to what Townes calls a "revelation" experienced on a park bench, he invented the maser (his acronym for Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission), which amplifies microwaves to produce an intense beam. By building on this work, he achieved similar amplification using visible light, resulting in the laser (whose name he also coined).

Even as his research interests have segued from microwave physics to astrophysics, Townes has continued to explore topics such as "Science, values, and beyond," in Synthesis of Science and Religion (1987), "On Science, and what it may suggest about us," in Theological Education (1988), and "Why are we here; where are we going?" in The International Community of Physics, Essays on Physics (1997).

Townes sat down one morning recently to discuss how these and other weighty questions have shaped his own life, and their role in current controversies over public education.

Q. If science and religion share a common purpose, why have their proponents tended to be at loggerheads throughout history?

Science and religion have had a long interaction: some of it has been good and some of it hasn't. As Western science grew, Newtonian mechanics had scientists thinking that everything is predictable, meaning there's no room for God — so-called determinism. Religious people didn't want to agree with that. Then Darwin came along, and they really didn't want to agree with what he was saying, because it seemed to negate the idea of a creator. So there was a real clash for a while between science and religions.

But science has been digging deeper and deeper, and as it has done so, particularly in the basic sciences like physics and astronomy, we have begun to understand more. We have found that the world is not deterministic: quantum mechanics has revolutionized physics by showing that things are not completely predictable. That doesn't mean that we've found just where God comes in, but we know now that things are not as predictable as we thought and that there are things we don't understand. For example, we don't know what some 95 percent of the matter in the universe is: we can't see it — it's neither atom nor molecule, apparently. We think we can prove it's there, we see its effect on gravity, but we don't know what and where it is, other than broadly scattered around the universe. And that's very strange.

So as science encounters mysteries, it is starting to recognize its limitations and become somewhat more open. There are still scientists who differ strongly with religion and vice versa. But I think people are being more open-minded about recognizing the limitations in our frame of understanding.

You've said "I believe there is no long-range question more important than the purpose and meaning of our lives and our universe." How have you attempted to answer that question?

Even as a youngster, you're usually taught that there's some purpose you'll try to do, how you are going to live. But that's a very localized thing, about what you want with your life. The broader question is, "What are humans all about in general, and what is this universe all about?" That comes as one tries to understand what is this beautiful world that we're in, that's so special: "Why has it come out this way? What is free will and why do we have it? What is a being? What is consciousness?" We can't even define consciousness. As one thinks about these broader problems, then one becomes more and more challenged by the question of what is the aim and purpose and meaning of this universe and of our lives.

Those aren't easy questions to answer, of course, but they're important and they're what religion is all about. I maintain that science is closely related to that, because science tries to understand how the universe is constructed and why it does what it does, including human life. If one understands the structure of the universe, maybe the purpose of man becomes a little clearer. I think maybe the best answer to that is that somehow, we humans were created somewhat in the likeness of God. We have free will. We have independence, we can do and create things, and that's amazing. And as we learn more and more — why, we become even more that way. What kind of a life will we build? That's what the universe is open about. The purpose of the universe, I think, is to see this develop and to allow humans the freedom to do the things that hopefully will work out well for them and for the rest of the world.

I'm a Protestant Christian, I would say a very progressive one. This has different meanings for different people. But I'm quite open minded and willing to consider all kinds of new ideas and to look at new things. At the same time it has a very deep meaning for me: I feel the presence of God. I feel it in my own life as a spirit that is somehow with me all the time.

You've described your inspiration for the maser as a moment of revelation, more spiritual than what we think of as inspiration. Do you believe that God takes such an active interest in humankind?

[The maser] was a new idea, a sudden visualization I had of what might be done to produce electromagnetic waves, so it's somewhat parallel to what we normally call revelation in religion. Whether the inspiration for the maser and the laser was God's gift to me is something one can argue about. The real question should be, where do brand-new human ideas come from anyway? To what extent does God help us? I think he's been helping me all along. I think he helps all of us — that there's a direction in our universe and it has been determined and is being determined. How? We don't know these things. There are many questions in both science and religion and we have to make our best judgment. But I think spirituality has a continuous effect on me and on other people.

That sounds like you agree with the "intelligent design" movement, the latest framing of creationism, which argues that the complexity of the universe proves it must have been created by a guiding force.

I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence — certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible's description of creation occurring over a week's time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn't know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it's just an analogy.

Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

I think it's very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent.

They don't have to negate each other, you're saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that's not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.

People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading.

That seems to come up when religion seeks to control or limit the scope of science. We're seeing that with the regulation of research into stem cells and cloning. Should there be areas of scientific inquiry that are off-limits due to a culture's prevailing religious principles?

My answer to that is, we should explore as much as we can. We should think about everything, try to explore everything, and question things. That's part of our human characteristic in nature that has made us so great and able to achieve so much. Of course there are problems if we do scientific experiments on people that involve killing them — that's a scientific experiment sure, but ethically it has problems. There are ethical issues with certain kinds of scientific experimentation. But outside of the ethical issues, I think we should try very hard to understand everything we can and to question things.

I think it's settling those ethical issues that's the problem. Who decides what differentiates a "person" from a collection of cells, for example?

That's very difficult. What is a person? We don't know. Where is this thing, me — where am I really in this body? Up here in the top of the head somewhere? What is personality? What is consciousness? We don't know. The same thing is true once the body is dead: where is this person? Is it still there? Has it gone somewhere else? If you don't know what it is, it's hard to say what it's doing next. We have to be open-minded about that. The best we can do is try to find ways of answering those questions.

Good luck is one, but also just having a good time. Some people say I work hard: I come in on Saturdays, and I work evenings both at my desk and in the lab. But I think I'm just having a good time doing physics and science. I have three telescopes down on Mt. Wilson; I was down there a couple nights last week. I've traveled a lot. On Sundays, my wife [of 64 years] and I usually go hiking. I'd say the secret has been being able to do things that I like, and keeping active.

'Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind — in fact his own mind — has a good chance of understanding this order.'

-Charles Townes, writing in "The Convergence of Science and Religion," IBM's Think magazine, March-April 1966

A Nov. 18-21, 2004 New York Times/CBS News poll on American mores and attitudes, conducted with 885 U.S. adults, showed that a significant number of Americans believe that God created humankind. UC Berkeley's Office of Student Research asked the same question on its 2005 UC Undergraduate Experience Survey, results for which are still coming in. As of June 8, 2,057 students had responded.

Everything we attribute to creativity is from sensation, which is all from Nature....

I thought Coytoteman said science doesn't DO philosophy? You ever seen a drag queen? Underneath the women's underwear, and the garish make up....., well, you don't have to have TACTILE EXPERIENCE to know what you know, which is that it is just a man who is confused.

So the "scientist" who makes comprehensive statements about the nature of reality, even to the extent of formulating "laws" of science. Here we are ensconced in a tiny corner of our galaxy, Which is just one in billions, and these people pompously assert that "this is the nature of matter/energy...." and "this is how matter/energy reacts under these circumstances"???????

He might claim to be doing science, but he is just a drag queen philosopher who is too confused to know it.

Without a whole gaggle of philosophical assumptions about the universe, the scientist cannot make a statement more comprehensive than "I think this just happened." (Even that statement is philosophically derived, but we will let him pass). A scientist can no more discover the nature of things than a child counting drops out of the faucet can discover the properties of water. The very BEST you can say about a scientist with no philosophical base is that he is a stastician.

Evidently you consider your post at 331 to be a knee-slapper, Coyoteman – but to me it is pitiful because you obviously have never experienced the first and most important divine revelation all Christians have experienced, i.e. when it dawned in us that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Divine revelations are the most certain knowledge for me because I have known God personally for nearly a half century.

This is interesting, because my sister once had a divine revelation of a different sort of God. She was going through some rough times and as she was thinking once she said out loud, "God?" She said she suddenly had the feeling of a Presence, rather bemused, as if it were thinking, "Yeah, I'm about, now carry on." Then it left. The God she experienced is distant and rather uninvolved. He might drop by to say hello, but he's not really interested in a personal relationship and expects us to go through life on our own two feet.

My question: What makes your divine revelation superior to hers?

My question: What makes your divine revelation superior to hers?

It is not a matter of superior/inferior, dear ahayes, they are just different types of revelations.

God did not make us with a cookie cutter.

The revelations given to John were not like those given to Peter which were not like those given to Paul which were not like the revelations given to doubting Thomas.

Thomas was given a physical revelation, Paul was stopped forcefully in his tracks so to speak, Peter was to first to receive the definitive revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord. And John had a vision, and a very personal relationship with the Lord built on love.

But Jesus Christ chose each one of them. And they are all apostles. They are just different, and that's ok.

What makes your divine revelation superior to hers?

That is a good question. Aside from the historically documented personage of Jesus Christ, who claimed to BE God, and told us that the premise behind her "revelation" is false, the traditional Christian response to that is " when God reveals Himself, He is able to authenticate the revelation." Revelatory acts of God are self authenticating. Statements like that either piss off or amuse skeptics who are quick to point out the circular nature of this reasoning, but there it is. It is also a claimed maxim of Christians that the nature of being in cosmic rebellion that prejudices the intellect of sinful man. We consciously and unconsciously subvert the truth about God we CAN see, to the point that we deliberately blind ourselves to who God is and what He is like.

Stastician is it? You know that stastics is the only way they have to find meaning in the soft sciences.

Precisely. There is ultimately no difference between the soft and hard sciences (BS in Chemistry here!), once the illusory claims of rationalism finally bite the dust in our culture.

by the way, thank you for not ragging me on statistician spelling.

Perhaps I was not clear. The God that was revealed to her was not the Judeo-Christian God. In order for your revelation to be true, hers would have to be false.

Mohommed received a different divine revelation. David Koresh received another. Joseph Smith received yet another. Siddh?rtha Gautama received a completely different one. There are thousands of divine revelations in history, and most of them contradict each other.

You place your divine revelation on the highest level of truth, so I’m wondering what methodology you use to determine that your divine revelation is absolute truth and everyone else’s is made up, a weird meaningless synaptic glitch, a drug-induced hallucination, etc.

Revelatory acts of God are self authenticating.

How do you mean? When a Christian has a religious experience, they feel that this is real, while to the outside observer there's no way to say whether it is or not. Likewise, my sister felt her experience was real, but I have no way of judging whether it was or not.

We consciously and unconsciously subvert the truth about God we CAN see, to the point that we deliberately blind ourselves to who God is and what He is like.

If this is true, why should a Christian's divine revelation be reliable?

Physics here. I find the best debate on scientific method to be in the history department. They are also looking in every disipline for any hint of method that might be of some use in history. They are harsh on their own membership! as evidenced by the popular book of fallacies encountered in history: that mentioned just about every historian who has bothered to publish lately. Science types ought to take a lesson from that and criticize assumptions a little more quickly and readily.

Edward Cayce is an example of one who began listening to spirits who are not God after he renounced Christ.

When God is speaking to you, you'll know it. Nevertheless, we are commanded to test the spirits.

The first and most important test is: "Who is Jesus?" (I John 4, I Cor 12)

The second is the fruit and tree test (Matt 7.) A bad tree cannot produce good fruit. The fruits of the Spirit are (paraphrased Gal 5): love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control.

The third is the Scriptural (Berean) test (Acts 17.)

But once the Spirit of Christ is alive in you, there is no power in heaven or earth that can come between God and you (except your own free will of course:) Romans 8:9 and 38-39.

That didn't really address my question.

When God is speaking to you, you'll know it.

Many people with revelations not from the Judeo-Christian God have been quite sure it was God speaking to them.

Nevertheless, we are commanded to test the spirits.

The tests you speak of begin with the presupposition that it is the Judeo-Christian God that is the true God. I asked how you can tell that divine revelation supposed to be from the Judeo-Christian God is more true that divine revelation supposed to come from some other God.

The power of God is unmistakable, dear ahayes.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. - Matt 22:29

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. - I Cor 1:24

That is why Peter's being first to receive the revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord is so important:

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. - Matt 16:17

Those who call themselves "Christian" but have never received that first revelation are just fooling themselves, they are "gritting their teeth."

As for the ones who have received that first revelation, they need no explanation --- and the others would not accept it anyway.

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. - John 8:43

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63

The ones Christ was addressing in John 8 were physically hearing Him (sound or pressure waves) but they were not spiritually hearing Him.

The power of God is unmistakable, dear ahayes.

So many people speaking for many different Gods say, my question is how do we tell which God is the true God? Which revelation is the true revelation? You say that your revelation is the true revelation because you've felt it so deeply, but those who have not experienced your revelation are not convinced (some of them have their own revelations which they've felt deeply). If you don't have a way to distinguish your revelation from theirs, you're essentially saying, "I believe it because it's mine!", which doesn't really help anyone else. You're basing your opinion on what absolute truth is on a subjective experience not shared by most people. It's a rather gnostic position to take.

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.