Following the Leader’s Guide Introduction are three separate pages summarizing (!) the main points of cosmology, molecular biology and paleontology. The message on all is that ID is the best and only explanation for the complexities in these fields of study, though no direct evidence is offered to support the contention. Instead the Guide appropriates suitable quotes from famous scientists — some out of context — to appeal to authority instead of evidence.
Cosmology : The Origin of the Universe
Guide:
Beginning with this heading, “Cosmology has shown that the universe had a beginning and that it is filled with exquisite order,” the Guide discusses “galaxy motion” (sic) and the “elegance of physical laws.”
The paragraph on galactic motion notes that the galaxies are moving away from other as the space between them expands, and that most scientists now believe the universe came into existence in a “big bang” — “and such a beginning implies a cause outside the universe that brought it into existence.”
Next, the Guide authoritatively states: “Scientists have also recognized the exquisite order and mathematical elegance of the physical laws governing the universe as pointing to cosmic design.” It then quotes physicist Paul Davies,
“The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is ‘something behind it all’ is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists.”
This section of the Guide concludes, “Without intelligent design, neither the beginning of the universe nor its order and elegance have an adequate explanation.”
Comments:
Albert Einstein in 1916 published his general theory of relativity, which explains how gravity works and how it interacts with space, time, matter and energy. His equations originally indicated that the universe was expanding, but astronomers of the day overwhelmingly assumed that the universe was static. Einstein modified his equations to eliminate the expansion. Eleven years later, a young astronomer, Edwin Hubble (who graduated from New Albany High School), discovered that the galaxies he was studying were all moving away from our galaxy and from each other. Hubble’s data verified Einstein’s original prediction!
Further investigations have supplied evidence that the universe is expanding and that at some point 13 to 15 billion years ago, the size of the universe was no bigger than an atom. The event leading to the expansion of the universe is called the Big Bang. Our understanding of physics allows us to “rewind the movie” to a point just 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, but no further. We don’t know what conditions were like before T+10-43 seconds, nor is there a scientific explanation (with attendant evidence) for the actual cause of the Big Bang. We may never know. Most cosmologists accept this gap in our understanding without proposing there must have been a supernatural agent setting off the Big Bang. That there is no material explanation does not require there be a supernatural one.
Likewise, many physicists have marveled at the power of mathematics to explain and predict physical phenomena, but not all go so far as to presume this explanatory power results from a Designer. The Guide overstates its case here.
Davies, who has written several popular books about physics and cosmology, is not in favor of Intelligent Design, despite the tone of the quote used here. In an essay he wrote for The New York Times, Davies says,
“It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. … “
The Guide does not cite a source for the particular Davies quote it uses. I did find a reference to it here, at a site providing pastors sermon ideas. British writer Alan Hayward, who favors Intelligent Design, uses the quote in his book, Creation and Evolution (p. 201). The same quote pops up at other ID sites, still without attribution, so it’s hard to say if it has been taken out of context.
Guide:
Here’s another pullout quote from Albert Einstein:
“The harmony of natural law… reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
Comment:
This one is taken out of context, as Einstein was not suggesting there was a Designer. Here’s a longer version, from his 1931 essay, Mein Weltbild (The World As I See It)
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religiosity of the naive man. For the latter, God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands, so to speak, in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation… There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection… It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
In other words, Einstein says, scientists are in awe of the harmony of natural law, which in and of itself contains a kind of intelligence. We should not construe this quote to suggest that Einstein was proposing there was a supernatural Designer calling the shots. His was a metaphoric God, not a real one.
Guide:
Another Einstein quote: “God does not play dice with the universe.”
Comment:
Einstein said something to this effect, though not using that exact wording, when commenting about the new field of quantum physics in a letter to fellow physicist Max Born in 1926,
“Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the ‘old one’. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.”
The quote does not directly pertain to cosmology, so it’s a puzzle why it’s included here at all.
Guide:
Now we come to a short presentation of the Anthropic Principle, which
states that if the physical structure of the universe were even slightly different, life would not exist. For example:
• If the gravitational force constant were larger by just one part in ten billion billion billion, we would be crushed out of existence.
• If the cosmological constant governing how fast the universe expands were smaller by just one part in ten followed by 120 zeros, the universe would have collapsed right after it was born.
• If the earth’s orbit were elliptical—like most other planets—rather than circular, or if it were just a bit closer or farther away from the sun, its temperature would not stay in the very narrow range required for lifesupporting chemical processes to function.
Comment:
The Anthropic Principle is hotly contested among scientists and philosophers, but it is not evidence of Intelligent Design. Appealing to the principle is a little like the old elephant repellent joke. (“I just bought a special elephant repelling machine.” “But there are no elephants around here.” “See! It works!”) Conditions may be just right for life to exist here, but they don’t require life to have developed here. Nor does the fact that we are here require someOne or something decided to put us here. The Anthropic Principle is not a scientific hypothesis, since it cannot be tested. Using it to support the notion of Intelligent Design is just not logical.
The gravitational force constant is the one in Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and equals 6.67 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2. It is known fairly precisely, but not to one part in 1027. At best, this statement is an exaggeration. At worst, it’s a complete fabrication.
The cosmological constant (the same one that Einstein fudged in 1916) is not precisely known, but it is extremely small. Current estimates of the constant suggest the universe will constantly expand, but other estimates suggest it could eventually collapse. Cosmologists have not reached consensus on its value, and its effect on the state of the universe is one of physics big mysteries. The contention that this minuscule difference in its value would have quashed the Big Bang has no basis in fact.
The Earth’s orbit is actually elliptical, despite what the Guide says. In January the Earth is about 5,000,000 km closer to the Sun than in June. Most of the other planets’ orbits are likewise nearly circular, which is why it took ancient astronomers centuries to detect the orbits’ eccentricities. It is true, however, that if the Earth had a more elliptical orbit there would be greater temperature swings between hot and cold, placing greater pressures on living organisms. If it were closer to the Sun, it would be hotter on average than it is now or colder on average if further away. The “habitable zone” for our Sun spans about 63 million km, with the Earth’s present orbit closer to the sunward side of the zone, so it’s by no means a sure thing that a small difference would necessarily have prevented life from developing here. In fact, if we assume life does not always need liquid water, the habitable zone for our solar system could be larger.
Guide:
A quote from Nobel-prize-winning physicist Charles Townes:
“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.”
Comments:
Townes, a Christian, believes science and religion are complementary explanations for the universe. This particular quote appears to be lifted from an interview with Townes published on the UC-Berkeley website. Townes is not insisting that ID is the only explanation, and in fact he argues that ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Here’s a longer quote from that interview:
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.
Townes alludes to the “multiverse” concept being bandied about by scientists, that there actually other universes co-existing with ours in which the various physical constants are different from our universes. In some, life would be impossible, supposedly. There is no way to test this hypothesis, so it’s merely conjecture.
The introduction promises “new scientific research” in cosmology pointing toward Intelligent Design. There is none referenced in this section at all. There are merely assertions that, since we don’t have all the answers, there must be a Designer. Logically speaking, the conclusion does not follow from the arguments. It’s the “God of the gaps” argument popular among ID proponents, and the principle weakness in the so-called theory.
Newton, while deriving his Law of Universal Gravitation, realized he could not explain by any mechanical means how inanimate objects A and B “know” to exert forces on each other across space. Rather than dilly-dally with conjectures that could not be supported logically, Newton chose to save the discussion for a later day, since it had no bearing on the validity of his Law. His contemporaries accused him of invoking magic and initially rejected the Law, until it became apparent that it worked very well indeed. The “action at a distance” dilemma remained unresolved until Einstein’s geometric explanation in 1916.
There was a gap in Newton’s gravitational theory. Note that he did not wave his hands around and say, “God makes it happen,” or “See! Someone designed the universe this way; we are just too stupid to see how it works.”
Newton was one very smart man.
Next up: Molecular biology
Recent Comments