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

UC Berkeley News ^ | 06/17/2005 | Bonnie Azab Powell,

[Jeff Gordon]

Your “logic” escapes me.

I noticed that.

[metmom]

I suppose one could consider the fact that oxygen will bind with hydrogen and not helium shows intelligence on the part of oxygen.

It demonstrates intelligence on the part of the designer to create atoms to consistently behave in such a way. You might as well say an automobile has intelligence because it you start it and put it in gear, it will move on it's own whether someone is in the drivers seat or not.

[B-Chan]

With all due respect: your worldview is founded upon a false premise. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that only those phenomena that can be "linked to something real" are real. However, this statement has two flaws:

1. It has no defintion of "something real"; and

2. It is a statement of faith.

1. If by "something real" you mean "those things that can be perceived by the senses", then that is fine, but please realize that sensory perceptions are entire subjective in nature. There is no way to demonstrate that the figures displayed upon a gauge, measuring rod, or scale you may be reading bear any relation to anything "real" at all. There is similarly no way to demonstrate without a doubt that anything you may see, hear, smell, touch, or taste has any existence outside of your own mind. For all you know there is no physical world "out there". For all you know this is all a dream.

2. Your criterion for "truth" seems to be "only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True". Unfortunately for you, however, the statement "only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True" is itself not demonstrable via the scientific method. Therefore, your own definition of Truth is self-refuting and meaningless. You may believe that only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True, but you cannot demonstrate the truth of that statement via the scientific method; therefore, the statement "only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True" is a statement of faith, not of objective truth.

All worldviews proceed from undemonstrated and undemonstrable axioms. The scientific worldview proceeds from the axiom that "a material reality external to the human mind exists and can be postively known through observation". This is a commonsense axiom, and one I share, but make no mistake: it is an axiom. I happen to believe that a material reality external to the human mind exists and can be postively known through observation, but the truth of that statement cannot be demontrated. I take the existence of the physical, knowable universe on faith — as do you.

If one cannot rely on the evidence of the senses as the criteria for Truth, how then can we know Truth? We can know it through logic. We can know one thing for certain —our own existence— because we do not apprehend our existence via our senses. We do not "see" ourselves, "feel" ourselves, "taste" "touch" or "hear ourselves". We are ourselves. We experience our own existence directly, immediately, without recourse to the senses. Anesthetize a man, drop him in a sensory deprivation tank, and otherwise cut him off from all sensory input, and he may come to doubt the existence of the outside world — but he continues to exist. We need no ear to hear ourselves think; we can see with our mind's eye even in a pitch-black room. Thus the basic truth of philosophy as formulated by Réne Descartes becomes obvious: cogito, ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am".

For the Christian, the fundamental axiom of thought might be stated as "God exists, and sent His Son, Jesus, to save mankind from destruction". We can demonstrate the existence of Jesus and His miracles using historical, eyewitness documentary evidence, but of course we have no way of "proving" the Christian faith via science. One cannot put God under a microscope, after all; He transcends space and time, matter and energy. The Christian worldview, however, does not depend entirely upon an unprovable axiom, for we can know the Truth behind it in an absolute way — the same way we can absolutely know the Truth of our own existence. We can know God exists through direct experience — not by means of our senses, but directly. We do not see, hear, smell, touch, taste, or otherwise sense the existence of God; we can join with Him and experience His presence directly. Not every believer has experienced God in this direct way, of course; for most, God is known via reason (i.e. via the evidences of His existence, intellectual faith, and logical necessity). A select few humans, however, are permiitted to contact the Divine Presence directly, intimtely, knowing Him in the same way they know themselves. We call such people "saints".

If quantum physics proves anything, it proves that the universe is not a blind clockwork, a deterministic machine made of dead matter. At their most fundamental level, space, time, matter, and energy are impossible to quantify precisely, and are thus "real" in a way that is more than merely the sum of their physical descriptors. Just as the universe is real at a level beyond our ability to observe, so too is the human mind. The brain may be the organ by which our consciousness contacts physical reality, but the brain is not the mind. The map is not the territory. Human consciousness has its foundation somewhere beyond all this — somewhere outside of nature — and, therefore, so does Truth.

[Jeff Gordon]

Just as the universe is real at a level beyond our ability to observe, so too is the human mind.

Quantum physics tells us not that the world is real but that the world is probably real. :-)

[RussP]

I’m always amused by atheists who refuse to believe in God until they get “proof.” If they are consistent, shouldn’t they also refuse to believe that any other conscious being exists until they get “proof” of that too?

Think about it. There is no way to prove, scientifically or otherwise, that any conscious being exists other than yourself. How could you possibly know that anyone or anything else is conscious unless you were them?

So why don’t Dawkins and Hitchens go around preaching solipsism? Because they would make fools of themselves? I have news for them: they are already doing that.

[YHAOS]

Thanks for the ping.

[YHAOS]

” Have no fear. you were not mentioned. I referred Dr Laughlin to the essay written by the the IDer from whom you got the quote:”

You’ve given us a ‘direct quote’ from Dr. Laughlin. Now perhaps you would be so accommodating as to give us a ‘direct quote’ of how you put the proposition to Dr. Laughlin that elicited his response.

[jonathanmo]

Jeez Louise. Surely you can’t be that dense.

[miliantnutcase]

You’re not alone. I enjoy reading your posts whenever these threads sprout.

[Coyoteman]

You have done a long, and thankfully polite and reasoned post. I appreciate that.

It all boils down to one thing. I prefer to do science, and argue from the rules and evidence of science. I am not arguing "Truth" but rather what can be perceived by the senses and deduced from logic.

You appear to believe in something outside of science, "Truth" or the equivalent. That's fine, but its not science.

You write,

Your criterion for "truth" seems to be "only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True". Unfortunately for you, however, the statement "only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True" is itself not demonstrable via the scientific method.

That might be true if I were seeking "Truth." I will leave that to philosophers and theologians. I prefer data and well-supported theories. Show me the evidence and we can go from there.

You continue:

Therefore, your own definition of Truth is self-refuting and meaningless. You may believe that only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True, but you cannot demonstrate the truth of that statement via the scientific method; therefore, the statement "only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True" is a statement of faith, not of objective truth.

You are arguing for religion or philosophy here. I have proposed no definition of "Truth." There is no quest for "Truth" in science. "Truth" is not something that can be verified by observation; it is based on belief.

Science seeks to work with facts, and to organize those facts with hypotheses, then theories. Hypotheses seek to organize the multitudes of facts; when a hypothesis has matured, and withstood the tests of data and time, and shown that it can make accurate predictions, it can be classified as a theory. Not "Truth," but a well-supported theory.

And this is where your argument breaks down. I need not take anything on faith. Science works with facts and theories--things that can be observed and documented.

Philosophy and religion rely on faith because their subject matter can't be observed and documented.

This is where we begin to part company.

The rest of your post deals with your personal beliefs, which I choose not to dispute.

[YHAOS]

Perhaps you had best halt any further elaboration. Otherwise one of our Darwinian friends might get an idea, start thinking real hard and cause all us Jesus Freaks to go poof!

[B-Chan]

Thanks! You put it much better than I did. Kudos!

[Jeff Gordon]

Professor Laughlin,

You have been famously quoted as saying, “The Darwinian theory has become an
all purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific
advance”

The primary example of the use of this quote can be found here:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-156123127.html

Your quote is now widely used by many to support the theory of Intelligent
Design. I have the distinct feeling that your quote is being used out of
context to back up a theory which you would not or do no support. I came to
this conclusion after reading your essay, “Reinventing Physics: The Search
for the Real Frontier.” I believe that you would find the idea of
Intelligent Design as limiting as you did “The End of Science”

I am wondering how you feel about the use of your name and reputation in
supporting the ID theory.

Thank you for your time,
(me)

[RussP]

In his reply, did he actually say anything against ID? If he did, I must have missed it.

[Jeff Gordon]

In another part of his reply, he said:

"Last year I got invited to a conference on a related subject at Baylor University. The organizers lost enthusiasm for inviting me, however, when they discovered that I would talk about primacy of experiment. I'm reasonably confident that they wanted to use me as a fall guy for the Theory of Evolution - i.e. as a supporter of the theory that they could then pillory in public. Thus I get grief from both sides of the evolution conflict. "

[RussP]

This seems more than a bit unusual. They wanted to “pillory him in public” for *supporting* the ToE? Isn’t the “pillorying” usually done for the opposite reason? Was it an ID conference? If so, why would he attend if he is offended by ID? Just wondering.

[YHAOS]

” Thank you for your time,”(you to Professor Laughlin, I presume)

Thank you for your time. I appreciate your courtesy.

I fail to see where the Professor’s quote is being used out of context. It certainly isn’t being represented as an endorsement of ID. Just to be unequivocal about the matter, RussP has stipulated that he does not represent the Professor’s quotation as an endorsement of ID. If you propose that any fair use quotation can only be cited by someone who is in total agreement with everything the person quoted has ever asserted, then you raise an impossible standard. Good Lord man! I quote Jefferson all the time and I find myself in the rare disagreement even with him.

But, congratulations on your skilful elicitation of precisely the sort of quote you wished from Professor Laughlin to use against RussP. A most novel and innovative form of quote mining. Salute!

[Jeff Gordon]

It certainly isn’t being represented as an endorsement of ID

If you Google Dr. Laughlin's quote you will each and every reference to it is using it to support ID. (Every one except the stand alone reference on RussP's Great Quotes page and now RussP's repeat of the quote on FR).

[Jeff Gordon]

If so, why would he attend if he is offended by ID?

Maybe he wanted to talk about the "primacy of experiment" just like he said?

"you hold a mirror up to show how ugly the queen is and she sees only how beautiful she is!" - Dr. Laughlin.

[RussP]

If you Google Dr. Laughlin’s quote you will each and every reference to it is using it to support ID. (Every one except the stand alone reference on RussP’s Great Quotes page and now RussP’s repeat of the quote on FR).

---

When a Nobel-laureate in physics blasts the Darwinian ToE, you can expect it to be used to support ID. If he hadn’t anticipated that, then he apparently doesn’t follow the online debates over evolution.

Actually, I think the Nobel Prize is often overrated. People tend to think it confers a god-like infallibility, but it doesn’t. What it does is shield the recipient against being labeled a crank, which is why I used Laughlin’s quote.

I am curious, however, about Laughlin’s actual position on evolution. He obviously has problems with the ToE, but yet he does not seem to accept ID. I’d like to know what he thinks the alternative is.