Charles Townes on evolution, intelligent design

[otseng]

Charles Townes is the inventor of the maser (predecessor of the laser) and a recipient of the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics.

He had some interesting comments to say about intelligent design and evolution:

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.

Source: 'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution, intelligent design, and the meaning of life

[Nyril]

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.

Also, he forgot to mention that it is cold outside because I put on a sweater. We exist in this parameters because we have worked to live inside of them, if we thrived on a healthy dose of gamma radiation from our star, we would remark how amazing it is that our sun provided it or that our soil had so very much of it.

For that argument to be valid, it should be shown that our particular life form is the only viable one, in which case it does indeed become quite spectacular that we are here. Otherwise, we've got a craps table roughly (actually, exactly) the length and depth of the universe in which to roll your cosmic dice. If you feel that isn't needed, please explain why.

[QED]

This is exactly the argument that I am locked into with harvey1. If our universe is the only one that ever existed, then yes, it would seem improbable to the point of impossibility to have started out with these particular conditions. It's not that other forms of life could exist if the physical constants were slightly different, small changes could easily be such that no chemistry, space or time would exist. It is of course impossible to discount bizarre alternatives to this universe bearing something akin to life, but for the purposes of this argument it is even safe to assume that ours is of a very special class indeed.

However, there simply is no reason at all to suppose that our universe represents a one-off. As a postulate, I'd say that a one-off universe is infinitely more fantastic than anticipating plural universes. There are many good reasons coming out of modern cosmology to say this. So form the perspective of our universe being a tiny bubble within a foam of different universes it is no surprise that we find ourselves in this particular environment.

[ST88]

This goes to show that the Anthropic Principle problem is not likely to be solved. It just seems too fantastic that this particular set of laws that we call a universe came about for no reason at all. But it seems to me the height of arrogance to assume that the universe was created just for us in this form so that we could enjoy it for what it is. There is no particular reason to assume that we, as humans and shaped as we are, are the end-all of the universe's creative process, except for the fact that we can ponder the question.

[QED]

This goes to show that the Anthropic Principle problem is not likely to be solved. It just seems too fantastic that this particular set of laws that we call a universe came about for no reason at all. But it seems to me the height of arrogance to assume that the universe was created just for us in this form so that we could enjoy it for what it is. There is no particular reason to assume that we, as humans and shaped as we are, are the end-all of the universe's creative process, except for the fact that we can ponder the question.

Exactly. We should not be as vain as the puddle of water who marvels at his perfect fit to a hole in the ground.

[otseng]

I was going to compose a post to reply to all the responses here, but then I thought better of it. Instead, let's debate more about the anthropic principle over in the debate section (provided I can find enough free time).