Creation/Evolution Quotes:
Design #2
Creation/Evolution Quotes:
Design #2[Quotes main page] [Design, #1, #3, #4]
"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie, John [Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Canada], "Universes," [1989], Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p.22).
[top of page]"The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgement, is overwhelming. The belief that there is "something behind it all" is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists." (Davies, Paul C.W. [physicist and former Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Adelaide], "The Christian perspective of a scientist," Review of "The way the world is," by John Polkinghorne, New Scientist, Vol. 98, No. 1354, pp.638-639, 2 June 1983, p.638).
[top of page]"The laws which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us." (Davies, Paul C.W. [physicist and former Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Adelaide], "Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature," [1984], Penguin: London, 1995, reprint, p.243).
[top of page]"In my book Accidental Universe I have made a comprehensive study of all the apparent 'accidents' and 'coincidences' that seem to be necessary in order that the important complex structures which we observe in the universe should exist. The sheer improbability that these felicitous concurrences could be the result of a series of exceptionally lucky accidents has prompted many scientists to agree with Hoyle's pronouncement that the universe is a `put-up job'." (Davies, Paul C.W. [physicist and former Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Adelaide], "Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature," [1984], Penguin: London, 1995, reprint, p.242).
[top of page]"Purpose pervades Hoyle's universe. He has long felt that natural selection alone could not account for the appearance and rapid evolution of life on the earth. Some supernatural intelligence must be directing the evolution of life and indeed of the entire cosmos-although to what end Hoyle does not know. The universe is an "obvious fix," he remarks. "There are too many things that look accidental that are not." Sensible scientists will dismiss such talk as preposterous. But every now and then, in their inevitable moments of doubt, they may wonder: Could Sir Fred be right?" (Horgan, John [science writer], "The Return Of The Maverick," Scientific American, Vol. 272, No. 324, March 1995, pp.24-25, p.25).
[top of page]"It turns out that the physical constants have just the values required to ensure that the Universe contains stars with planets capable of supporting intelligent life...The simplest interpretation is that the Universe was designed by a creator who intended that intelligent life should evolve. This interpretation lies outside science." (Maynard Smith, John [Emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex] & Szathmary, Eors [Institute for Advanced Study, Budapest], "On the likelihood of habitable worlds," Nature, Vol. 384, 14 November 1996, p.107).
[top of page]"Although gravity does play this unique role, the exact values of the strengths of the other fundamental forces seem to be just as important for life. The example we have elaborated in detail is typical of such exercises if we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for every one that we "solve." The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity." (Gribbin, John [science writer and cosmologist] & Rees, Sir Martin [Astronomer Royal and Royal Society Research Professor, Cambridge University], "Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology," Bantam: New York NY, 1989, pp.268-269. Emphasis in the original).
[top of page]"From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of 12C to the 7.12 Mev level in 16O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." (Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 20, 1982, pp.1-35, p.16).
[top of page]"Nevertheless an explanation cognate with known laws is conceivable, and in the light of experience it would be folly to think it impossible or even improbable. Such an explanation once attained might, however, avail the biologist little; for a further problem, apparently more difficult, remains. How does it come about that each and all of these many unique properties should be favorable to the organic mechanism, should fit the universe for life? And for the answer to this question existing knowledge provides, I believe, no clew. ... The great difficulty appears to be that there is here no possibility of interaction. In our solar system, at least, the fitness of the environment far precedes the existence of the living organisms." (Henderson, Lawrence .J. [late Professor of Biological Chemistry, Harvard University, USA], "The Fitness of the Environment: An Inquiry into the Biological Significance of the Properties of Matter," [1913], Beacon Press: Boston MA, 1958, reprint, p.278)
[top of page]"As our understanding of the basic processes of nature advances, so it becomes increasingly clear that what we call scientific laws are not just any old laws, but are remarkably special in a number of intriguing ways. ... The physical world is not arbitrarily regulated; it is ordered in a very particular way poised between the twin extremes of simple regimented orderliness and random complexity. It is neither a crystal nor a random gas. The universe is undeniably complex, but its complexity is of an organized variety. Moreover, this organization was not built into the universe at its origin. It has emerged from primeval chaos in a sequence of self- organizing processes that have progressively enriched and complexified the evolving universe in a more or less unidirectional matter. It is easy to imagine a world that, while ordered, nevertheless does not possess the right sort of forces or conditions for the emergence of complex organization." (Davies, Paul C.W. [physicist and former Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Adelaide, South Australia], "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science," in Templeton J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator," Continuum: New York, 1994, pp.44-45).
[top of page]"Alternatively the numerical coincidences could be regarded as evidence of design. The delicate fine-tuning in the values of the constants, necessary so that the various different branches of physics can dovetail so felicitously, might be attributed to God. It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out. Such a conclusion can of course, only be subjective. In the end it boils down to a question of belief. Is it easier to believe in a cosmic designer than the multiplicity of universes necessary for the weak anthropic principle to work? It is hard to see how either hypothesis could ever be tested in the strict scientific sense. As remarked in the previous chapter, if we cannot visit the other universes or experience them directly, their possible existence must remain just as much a matter of faith as belief in God. Perhaps future developments in science will lead to more direct evidence for other universes, but until then, the seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design." (Davies, Paul C.W. [physicist and former Professor of Natural Philosophy, University of Adelaide, South Australia], "God and the New Physics", [1983], Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, p.189)
[top of page]"These six numbers constitute a 'recipe' for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be `untuned', there would be no stars and no life." (Rees, Sir Martin [Astronomer Royal and Royal Society Research Professor, Cambridge University], "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe," [1999], Phoenix: London, 2000, p.4).
[top of page]"The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially important huge number N in nature, equal to 1,000,000, 000,000, 000,000,000,000, 000, 000, 000, 000. This number measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If N had a few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution." (Rees, Sir Martin [Astronomer Royal and Royal Society Research Professor, Cambridge University], "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe," [1999], Phoenix: London, 2000, p.2)
[top of page]"Another number, E, whose value is 0.007, defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and how all the atoms on Earth were made. Its value controls the power from the Sun and, more sensitively, how stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table. Carbon and oxygen are common, whereas gold and uranium are rare, because of what happens in the stars. If E were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist." (Rees, Sir Martin [Astronomer Royal and Royal Society Research Professor, Cambridge University], "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe," [1999], Phoenix: London, 2000, p.2)
[top of page]"The cosmic number W (omega) measures the amount of material in our universe - galaxies, diffuse gas, and 'dark matter'. W tells us the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. If this ratio were too high relative to a particular 'critical' value, the universe would have collapsed long ago; had it been too low, no galaxies or stars would have formed. The initial expansion speed seems to have been finely tuned." (Rees, Sir Martin [Astronomer Royal and Royal Society Research Professor, Cambridge University], "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe," [1999], Phoenix: London, 2000, pp.2-3)
[top of page]"Measuring the fourth number, l (lambda), was the biggest scientific news of 1998. An unsuspected mew force - a cosmic 'antigravity' - controls the expansion of our universe, eaten though it has no discernible effect on scales less than a billion light- years. It is destined to become ever more dominant over gravity and other forces as our universe becomes ever darker and emptier. Fortunately for us (and very surprisingly to theorists), l is very small. Otherwise its effect would have stopped galaxies and stars from forming, and cosmic evolution would have been stifled before it could even begin." (Rees, Sir Martin [Astronomer Royal and Royal Society Research Professor, Cambridge University], "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe," [1999], Phoenix: London, 2000, p.3)
[top of page]"The fabric of our universe depends on one number, Q which represents the ratio of two fundamental energies and is about 1/100,000 in value. If Q were even smaller, the universe would be inert and structureless; if Q were much larger, it would be a violent place, in which no stars or solar systems could survive. dominated by vast black holes." (Rees, Sir Martin [Astronomer Royal and Royal Society Research Professor, Cambridge University], "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe," [1999], Phoenix: London, 2000, p.3)
[top of page]"The sixth crucial number has been known for centuries, although it's now viewed in a new perspective. It is the number of spatial dimensions in our world, D, and equals three. Life couldn't exist if D were two or four. Time is a fourth dimension, but distinctively different from the others in that it has a built-in arrow: we 'move' only towards the future. Near black holes, space is so warped that light moves in circles, and time can stand still. Furthermore, close to the time of the Big Bang, and also on microscopic scales, space may reveal its deepest underlying structure of all: the vibrations and harmonies of objects called 'superstrings', in a ten-dimensional arena." (Rees, Sir Martin [Astronomer Royal and Royal Society Research Professor, Cambridge University], "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe," [1999], Phoenix: London, 2000, pp.3-4)
[top of page]"Thus regarded, our new form of the old riddle appears twofold, and, on that account, for the present the more unanswerable. There is but one immediate compensation for this complexity; a proof that somehow, beneath adaptations, peculiar and unsuspected relationships exist between the properties of matter and the phenomena of life; that the process of cosmic evolution is indissolubly linked with the fundamental characteristics of the organism; that logically, in some obscure manner, cosmic and biological evolution are one. In short, we appear to be led to the assumption that the genetic or evolutionary processes, both cosmic and biological, when considered in certain aspects, constitute a single orderly development that yields results not merely contingent, but resembling those which in human action we recognize as purposeful. For, undeniably, two things which are related together in a complex manner by reciprocal fitness make up in a very real sense a unit, something quite different from the two alone, or the sum of the two, or the relationship between the two. In human affairs such a unit arises only from the effective operation of purpose." (Henderson, Lawrence J. [late Professor of Biological Chemistry, Harvard University], "The Fitness of the Environment: An Inquiry into the Biological Significance of the Properties of Matter," [1913], Beacon Press: Boston MA, 1958, reprint, pp.278-279).
[top of page]"There is, in truth, not one chance in countless millions of millions that the many unique properties of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and especially of their stable compounds water and carbonic acid, which chiefly make up the atmosphere of a new planet, should simultaneously occur in the three elements otherwise than through the operation of a natural law which somehow connects them together. There is no greater probability that these unique properties should be without due cause uniquely favorable to the organic mechanism. These are no mere accidents; an explanation is to seek. It must be admitted, however, that no explanation is at hand." (Henderson, Lawrence J. [late Professor of Biological Chemistry, Harvard University], "The Fitness of the Environment: An Inquiry into the Biological Significance of the Properties of Matter," [1913], Beacon Press: Boston MA, 1958, reprint, p.276).
[top of page]"Water is actually one of the strangest substances known to science. This may seem a rather odd thing to say about a substance as familiar but it is surely true. Its specific heat, its surface tension, and most of its other physical properties have values anomalously higher or lower than those of any other known material. The fact that its solid phase is less dense than its liquid phase (ice floats) is virtually a unique property. These aspects or the chemical and physical structure of water have been noted before, for instance by the authors of the Bridgewater Treatises in the 1830's and by Henderson in 1913, who also pointed out that these strange properties make water a uniquely useful liquid and the basis for living things." (Barrow, John D. [Professor of Astronomy, University of Sussex UK] & Tipler, Frank J. [Professor of Mathematical Physics, Tulane University, New Orleans, USA], "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle", [1986], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1996, reprint, p.524)
[top of page]"It was not for some time that I was able to place my finger on the source of my discomfort. It arises, I understand now, because the contention that we owe our existence to a stupendous series of coincidences strikes a responsive chord. That contention is far too close for comfort to notions such as: We are the center of the universe. God loves mankind more than all other creatures. The cosmos is watching over us. The universe has a plan; we are essential to that plan." (Greenstein, George [Professor of Astronomy, Amherst College, USA]., "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos", William Morrow & Co: New York NY, 1988, pp.25-26).
[top of page]"A parking lot is filled with cars, all in rapid, frantic motion. Their drivers are acting without the slightest regard for safety, turning the steering wheels this way and that, stepping on the gas and slamming on the brakes, and all completely at random. Not only that, but every last one of them is blindfolded. There are going to be some dented fenders soon. That is the danger facing us. The peaceful scene about me is subject to the most deadly danger. How long do we have? But hold on a moment! Don't concentrate on the future. Concentrate on the past, on all the thousands, even millions of years of history that have led up to this moment. The longer one waits, the greater the chance of collision, and if one had occurred at any point in the past nothing of what I see would have come into being. Had the Sun collided with a passing star in the epoch of the ancient Sumerians, none of us would have been born. The same would be true had the cataclysm occurred in the time of the dinosaurs. Our existence depends not simply on the avoidance of disaster this year or next, but throughout all of previous history." (Greenstein, George [Professor of Astronomy, Amherst College, USA]., "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos", William Morrow & Co: New York NY, 1988, pp.17-18).
[top of page]"Removing the moon seems harmless enough at first. Of course, Solon [Earth without the moon] would differ from the earth. The tides would be lower without the moon, and it would lack eclipses and romantic, moonlit nights, but in the global scheme of things these changes seem trivial. As we dig deeper, we discover that lower tides, higher winds, and shorter days would greatly affect Solon's geography, its ability to evolve life, and the quality of the life animals would have there. As the differences between Earth and Solon become more evident, it becomes clear that Solon would be a much less hospitable place in which to live. There is much more that could be said about Solon, but this chapter raises a broader question that cries out for consideration. That is, just how ideal a planet did we inherit compared with the one we might have gotten? Are we living on the best of all possible worlds?" (Comins, Neil F.[Professor of Astronomy & Physics, University of Maine, USA], "What If the Moon Didn't Exist?: Voyages to Earths That Might Have Been," HarperCollins: New York NY, 1993, p.48).
[top of page]* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists.
Copyright © 1999-2002, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only. If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated. Created: 28 August, 1999. Updated: 3 December, 2002.
