Skip to comments.'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution & intelligent design
Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
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.
I thought this would be good to share...
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.
How do you categorize your religious beliefs?
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.
You'll turn 90 on July 28. What's the secret to long life?
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
Who created us? U.S. vs. UC Berkeley beliefs
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.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE TABLE THAT SHOWS THE RESULT
So, nobody has a monopoly on dogmatism. Count me in with the respectable posters here who recognize that religious dogmatism and scientific dogmatism are equally stifling. And since we are not surprised that both shows up, I’m not ready to use dogmatism as a cudgel against either religion or science.
Some information about me: I was saved at 4, witnessed to my friends at school, memorized Bible verses galore, have read through the Bible multiple times, have worked with children and prayed the sinner's prayer with them, wept and prayed for my father and grandmother's salvation, thought about going to Bible college, and chose to go to a Christian college. I never experienced any miracles, surprising answers to prayer (sure, I got A's on occasion when I prayed for them, but I wouldn't call that a miracle), or life-changing emotional spiritual experiences. You've said I'm very logical, and I tend not to trust my emotions. I know they are fleeting and easily engaged by certain things (dim lights, pretty pictures, and repetitive melodies) that may not be of divine origin at all. My faith was built chiefly on loyalty and stick-to-it-iveness, not evidences.
I did not quench the Spirit, forget, get distracted, or reject Jesus. My counter-conversion was a lengthy and troubling process, and at the end what bothered me the most was that I did not want to believe that Jesus and the disciples were not as they were depicted in the Gospels. There's a lot of flippancy by Christians about my experiences--I must not have been truly saved, I never actually "experienced" God at all, I am sinful and decided to selfishly go after lies--which I find very insulting and arrogant. But I understand people get defensive when they find their worldview threatened, and tend to assume someone like me must not have had the same experiences they had, or I could not have reached my conclusions.
That's simply not so.
I never suggested getting rid of religion.
Good. So how do you resolve competing claims?
I don’t. I figure if God wants to tell me something important, he’ll give me a revelation personally. He seems to be handing them out like candy to everyone else in the world.
Science goes wherever the methodology leads to results. Bohr may have been good, but then so was Newton (and on the subject of quantum theory, so was Einstein).
Science is not axiomatic or bound by rules derived from axioms.
Having said all that, I have no idea what you are trying to say. By "peace" do you mean giving up on the search for regular processes in living things, or assuming that there are some things we just weren't meant to know?
Oodles of them, but I don’t attempt to resolve them.
But to my brothers and sisters in Christ, some of whom I am pinging to this post, it is only obvious! We share in the same Spirit. We are dead and yet alive with Christ in God. We have the mind of Christ. We are different.
Amen. AG! By the grace of God alone.
I tried to find a couple paragraphs from this essay to excerpt but found it difficult to narrow my choice. Every word is golden. Every sentence speaks to God's glory, much as your post does, AG. I hope you all read Van Til's argument and enjoy it as much as I do. Here's just a small part of Van Til's discussion with an unbeliever...
"...Take now the four points I have mentioned -- creation, providence, prophecy, and miracle. Together they represent the whole of Christian theism. Together they include what is involved in the idea of God and what He has done round about and for us. Many times over and in many ways the evidence for all these has been presented. But you have an always available and effective answer at hand. It is impossible! It is impossible!...
Van Til concludes...
And if my unity is comprehensive enough to include the efforts of those who reject it, it is large enough even to include that which those who have been set upright by regeneration cannot see. My unity is that of a child who walks with its father through the woods. The child is not afraid because its father knows it all and is capable of handling every situation. So I readily grant that there are some "difficulties" with respect to belief in God and His revelation in nature and Scripture that I cannot solve. In fact there is mystery in every relationship with respect to every fact that faces me, for the reason that all facts have their final explanation in God Whose thoughts are higher than my thoughts, and Whose ways are higher than my ways. And it is exactly that sort of God that I need. Without such a God, without the God of the Bible, the God of authority, the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all. So you see when I was young I was conditioned on every side; I could not help believing in God. Now that I am older I still cannot help believing in God. I believe in God now because unless I have Him as the All-Conditioner, life is Chaos. I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy."
"...Looking about me I see both order and disorder in every dimension of life. But I look at both of them in the light of the Great Orderer Who is back of them. I need not deny either of them in the interest of optimism or in the interest of pessimism. I see the strong men of biology searching diligently through hill and dale to prove that the creation doctrine is not true with respect to the human body, only to return and admit that the missing link is missing still. I see the strong men of psychology search deep and far into the sub-consciousness, child and animal consciousness, in order to prove that the creation and providence doctrines are not true with respect to the human soul, only to return and admit that the gulf between human and animal intelligence is as great as ever. I see the strong men of logic and scientific methodology search deep into the transcendental for a validity that will not be swept away by the ever-changing tide of the wholly new, only to return and say that they can find no bridge from logic to reality, or from reality to logic. And yet I find all these, though standing on their heads, reporting much that is true. I need only to turn their reports right side up, making God instead of man the center of it all, and I have a marvelous display of the facts as God has intended me to see them.
And if my unity is comprehensive enough to include the efforts of those who reject it, it is large enough even to include that which those who have been set upright by regeneration cannot see. My unity is that of a child who walks with its father through the woods. The child is not afraid because its father knows it all and is capable of handling every situation. So I readily grant that there are some "difficulties" with respect to belief in God and His revelation in nature and Scripture that I cannot solve. In fact there is mystery in every relationship with respect to every fact that faces me, for the reason that all facts have their final explanation in God Whose thoughts are higher than my thoughts, and Whose ways are higher than my ways. And it is exactly that sort of God that I need. Without such a God, without the God of the Bible, the God of authority, the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all.
So you see when I was young I was conditioned on every side; I could not help believing in God. Now that I am older I still cannot help believing in God. I believe in God now because unless I have Him as the All-Conditioner, life is Chaos.
I shall not convert you at the end of my argument. I think the argument is sound. I hold that belief in God is not merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God you can logically believe in nothing else. But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy."
"...the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian."
"Don't use your circular logic on me. I work for the phone company." -- the guy from the phone company to Elaine on "Seinfeld" who later "disappeared."
Oodles, OK. Different kinds as well. Not all of them are competing religious claims. You don’t attempt to resolve competing epistemological claims?
Jesus has warned us that there will be those in the judgment who'll say "Lord, Lord" and He'll respond that He never knew them. That is a revelation that is best heard on this side of eternity, when there is still an opportunity to ask God for "ears to hear."
But they are NOT equally grounded, ahayes. We have the objective testimony of scripture, the objective historicity of the person of Jesus, along with the subjective EXPERIENCE of the objective testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Now I will admit that my experiences of ALL these things is subjective, as is every experience of everything by everyone. In that sense, all knowledge is simply faith, and the quest for human "objectivity" is a fools errand in the first place. There ain't no such animal. We are left with a bunch of competing faith claims, and that's the ball game.
This does NOT reduce all faith claims to the same level of reliability. You have said that you are not a Christian so by definition you would not know the self authenticating communication by the Holy Spirit to those who belong to God. We have it. We know it, and we don't expect that to pass as something you can "observe" and evaluate. You can listen to us make the claims and decide if they are reasonable, but the confirmation of truth is outside your ken. That is not arrogant, it is just the way it is.
It is also true that men are in a headlong flight away from God and will deliberately obfuscate clear evidence to avoid confrontation with Him. Further, men know, but deliberately avoid clear and unmistakable evidence that would lead them to correct suppositions re: God's nature (personal and moral) and power. In fact, if the scriptures are correct, men will NOT be judged primarily for the "bad" stuff they do, but rather for the fact that they hate the evidences God has left for them in this world, whether it be in creation or in Scripture, and that in hating it, they flee from it and will lie to themselves rather than face it.
Ex-Christian. Been there, done that.
Other religions have their own Scriptures and histories. They have their own supposed objective testimony in addition to their own subjective experiences.
Doesn’t it bother you that God would refuse to speak to someone who truly believed in him and was quite dedicated?
I do not attempt to resolve countering religious claims because they are based upon subjective experiences which we have seen here cannot be shown to be superior to another. Other claims may be more open to evaluation.
I'm not aware of scientists lobbying for laws requiring churches to give equal time to evolution (or atheism, or whatever).
If, by "getting out of each other's hair," you mean stop writing books, that is just silly.
You'd have to give me an example, js1138.
And as far as belief goes, the demons also believe, and they tremble. (James)
You must be born again (John 3) - there is no other way.
Mormonism, Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I see. So it isn’t religion per se that you have a problem with, but something called subjective that you don’t like. Is that right? Is it that whatever is subjective should be ignored, eradicated, rendered useless? What’s the point of all this subjective experience? I’m trying to understand what you real problem is. I first thought it was a problem competing claims, but that’s not unique to religion.
I have a problem having conversations with jerks with chips on their shoulders. It’s my cross I must bear. Goodbye.
The public school system is a horse of a different color though because it is funded by taxpayers. Neither scientists nor theologians "own" the workspace. So it becomes a matterof law, politics, ideologies, yada yada.
And I'd very much like to avoid yet another sidebar, btw.
You seem to be adding to the requirements for salvation. Not only must you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9-10), but you must also have some sort of intense spiritual experience. That is gnosticism, and that is an unorthodox addition to soteriology.
How’s it feel to be a heretic? :-D
It bothers me, sometimes. A lover's silence, for example, can break the heart. When someone ignores me I might return the silence, but I can't make them disappear.
And it is not heresy, here it is:
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
Why thank you for insulting me once again. I hope you’re proud of your godliness in taking the fight to the unbelievers.
Where is the requirement that one must have an emotional experience in order to be born again?
Although that makes a cool sci-fi story.
Sophistry. Mainstream science has traditions, organizations, publications, conferences, all devoted to the presentation and evaluation of ideas. You do not push theology into science teaching without going through that gauntlet, any more than you push faith healing into medicine without going through organized medical research.
As for matters of law, the law is pretty well settled, unless ID actually discovers something interesting using the methods of science. But that seems unlikely, since the Discovery Institute is dedicated to the overthrow of empiricism.
I don't know very much about any of these really. I did study with the Witnesses for a while. I disliked the language of their bible; but then I love the language of KJV (old literary habits die hard). To me, The Witnesses downplay the mysterious. There was an answer to every question.
Anyhoot, if people genuinely find God through these confessions, what objection could I possibly have?
Then how can you reasonably conclude that I was not truly saved? You cannot see into my spirit.
Would you please stop pinging everyone and their brother to my personal conversation? I’m sure if they’re interested in the thread they’ll run across my replies without your notifying everyone of it.
Be at peace, sister, the trend will grow as the end of this age draws near. Strive with, pray for, but be at peace in your spirit for we know Whom is transforming us. Not all minds will be renewed. In fact, broad is the road and wide is the gate that most will use, sadly. You will be reviled by some but ignored by most. And by this you may know His indwelling is True.
Everyone has a different experience, by the grace of God.
For some it comes as a thunderbolt of understanding. For others, it's a gradual acknowledgment that God is God overall and to Him be all the glory.
Either way, we are given new ears and new eyes and a new heart at a time of God's choosing in the manner God has ordained from before the foundation of the world. Mercifully, our Scriptural discernment of our salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ is transformative, exactly as God intends it to be.
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2
And how is our mind renewed? By the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5
Having experienced life from both sides, as most of us have, we can only hope you will be graced with the same confidence in Christ we have been given. It's a lot more enjoyable, gratifying and productive.
There are 30,000 Christian sects in this country. I do not know if that includes the many flavors of Catholic. They obviously all disagree on something or other yet are Christian anyway. What does that mean?
I've done that, but in the opposite order. I find my life equally enjoyable, gratifying, and productive as before.
I care not a hoot what people believe in private, as long as they are well behaved.
Science, however, is toothpaste out of the tube. You can't poke it back in.
The things that are settled are common descent and a greater than four billion year old earth. Things that are not settled are the minutia and causes of variation. These issues will be settled, as they always are, by finding the causes. No one is going to abandon methodologies that have been successful for centuries and substitute scholasticism.
You apparently haven't consulted some of the sects to find out their opinion. :-D
An interesting hypothesis. Time will tell, although science is most likely a passing fad. Hoola hoop. Pet rock. Mood ring. Physics.
Actually not. District Judges do not make settled law, even the ones you or I agree with.
My only word beyond that is -- "There's more to be had."
I’ve never counted sects. I was just giving examples of large congregations that accept recent revelations. How does one distinguish true revelations from false? Or does this not matter?
A lot of people kill each other over this.
Looking forward to it. :-D
I have not dug into the differences between all 30,000 although I have been immersed in some, so to speak and sprinkled with others. It is amusing but somewhere in each is the presence of Christ in some form. Whether the details of the crucifixion and resurrection are the same for everybody after 2000 years of a few billion opinions is immaterial. As to revelation, I mentioned my most recent opinion on this above.
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.