Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution & intelligent design
UC Berkeley News ^ | 06/17/2005 | Bonnie Azab Powell,

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: charlestownes; evolution; fsmdidit; gagdad; id; intelligentdesign; templetonprize; townes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 641-655 next last
To: ahayes

Oodles, OK. Different kinds as well. Not all of them are competing religious claims. You don’t attempt to resolve competing epistemological claims?

461 posted on 06/11/2007 12:24:13 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: ahayes; betty boop; Dr. Eckleburg; .30Carbine
That you didn't reject Jesus is the best news I've heard all day!

My faith was built chiefly on loyalty and stick-to-it-iveness, not evidences.

That is what I've been calling "teeth gritting."

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."

462 posted on 06/11/2007 12:26:23 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
You can’t even provide a reason why we should accept your experience as true, yet you insult others with experiences that are equally grounded.

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.

463 posted on 06/11/2007 12:27:18 PM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Libertarianism: u can run your life better than government can, and should be left alone to do it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: js1138
By "peace" I mean getting out of each other's hair.
464 posted on 06/11/2007 12:28:28 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp

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.

465 posted on 06/11/2007 12:30:29 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Doesn’t it bother you that God would refuse to speak to someone who truly believed in him and was quite dedicated?

466 posted on 06/11/2007 12:31:19 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

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.

467 posted on 06/11/2007 12:32:35 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you oh so very much for that beautiful, beautiful testimony! And thank you for all of your encouragements!
468 posted on 06/11/2007 12:33:55 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
By "peace" I mean getting out of each other's hair.

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.

469 posted on 06/11/2007 12:36:25 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: js1138
There are several large offshoots of Christianity in this country based on revelations. I'm curious what you make of them and why.

You'd have to give me an example, js1138.

470 posted on 06/11/2007 12:38:26 PM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: ahayes; betty boop; Dr. Eckleburg; .30Carbine; hosepipe
Doesn’t it bother you that God would refuse to speak to someone who truly believed in him and was quite dedicated?

Not at all. God knows His own, when Jesus speaks, they hear Him and He knows them and they follow Him (John 10).

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.

471 posted on 06/11/2007 12:39:36 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Mormonism, Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

472 posted on 06/11/2007 12:41:13 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: ahayes

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.

473 posted on 06/11/2007 12:41:41 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: cornelis

I have a problem having conversations with jerks with chips on their shoulders. It’s my cross I must bear. Goodbye.

474 posted on 06/11/2007 12:44:28 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
Doesn’t it bother you that God would refuse to speak to someone who truly believed in him and was quite dedicated?

Like Torquemada?

475 posted on 06/11/2007 12:46:01 PM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Libertarianism: u can run your life better than government can, and should be left alone to do it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I'm not aware of any theists demanding equal time in the laboratories or observatories for preaching.

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.

476 posted on 06/11/2007 12:47:11 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

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

477 posted on 06/11/2007 12:49:18 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: ahayes
Doesn’t it bother you that God would refuse to speak to someone who truly believed in him and was quite dedicated?

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.

478 posted on 06/11/2007 12:49:52 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: ahayes; betty boop; Dr. Eckleburg; .30Carbine; hosepipe
LOLOL! Nice try, but I've been called worse.

And it is not heresy, here it is:

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:5-6

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

479 posted on 06/11/2007 12:52:55 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp

Why thank you for insulting me once again. I hope you’re proud of your godliness in taking the fight to the unbelievers.

480 posted on 06/11/2007 12:53:54 PM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 641-655 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson