Science in Christian Perspective
HOW AND WHY DID IT ALL BEGIN?
CHARLES H. TOWNES
Department of Physics University of California Berkeley, California 94720
From: JASA 24 (March 1972): 1-4.
Two Views of Creation
There have been two distinct, long-standing views of creation-that
is, the origin
of our universe and of life in it. The first view makes each the
result of a unique
and special event. The second assumes that the universe and life are
more continuous
and commonplace events, with no unique moment of origin. These two
possibilities
do not represent simply the difference between a religious view and a secular
view, though they may affect profoundly an individual's outlook. Nor
do they correspond
to a scientific versus a non-scientific view. Assumptions of a unique
and special
creation on the one hand, or an inevitable arid more commonplace one
on the other
have been a continuing theme through a great deal of man's thought.
During much of human history, it has been normal to believe that life
was created
from time to time spontaneously from materials of nature, or perhaps
by some more
or less capricious supernatural event. A recipe for creating mice
during the Middle
Ages
advises taking an old shirt and putting some grain in it. When stuffed into the
corner of a room for a few weeks, mice were sure to he found, created according
to the recipe. Such ideas as the commonplace spontaneous creation of
life persisted
into the nineteenth century and were only disproved after much labor
and considerable
argument within the scientific community by the great scientist
Pasteur. By aseptic
techniques, he showed conclusively that all life as we know it comes from other
life.
While science was thus on the one hand making the creation of life seem rather
special, on the other hand it was also busy during the same period detracting
from ideas about the unique character of man's existence. Copernicus
and Galileo
had already removed man from the center of the universe. The study of the vast
collections of stars called galaxies, and then of cosmology, extended our view
of the universe so enormously that man's being important in it seemed
almost unthinkable.
Darwin's ideas on evolution, and now modern biochemistry, go a long way towards
indicating that life itself was generated by random processes, some might say
rather casually and accidentally, on the basis of physical laws which
we largely know.
Random Creation
This general view of random creation is, however, by no means a
product of recent
thought. Lucretius, the Roman poet and a proponent of an atomic
theory of matter,
made the following remarkably modern
sounding statement more than 2000 years ago:
Our world has been made by nature through the spontaneous and casual collision and the random and purposeless congregation and eoaleseense of atoms where combinations could serve on each occasion as the starting point of substantial constructions-earth and sea and sky and the races of living creatures. You have the same natural force to congregate them in any place precisely as they have been congregated here. You are hound, therefore, to acknowledge that in other regions there are other earths and various races of men and breeds of beasts.
I believe it was Julian Huxley who first used the example of a hundred monkeys
peeking randomly at a hundred typewriters in order to suggest We randomness and
lack of mystery even in man's intelligence. He noted that the monkeys would in
time, entirely by chance, type out all of Shakespeare's works and The
Encyclopedia
Brittanica.
These ideas are certainly cogent to our problem. However, to put this
randomness
in a little more perspective, we must note the results of
quantitative calculation.
While it is true that monkeys may randomly turn out The Encyclopedia
Britannica,
a simple calculation shows that one billion monkeys typing randomly as fast as
they can 24 hours a day on one billion typewriters for the entire lifetime of
the universe as we know it would probably not yet have typed out the
correct sequence
of letters in the title the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Thus, while
randomness must
have had an important and powerful effect, something other than the
simple random
juxtaposition of atoms must have been important its the formation of
complex life.
We seem to need something more systematic, some mold from uhieb the
complex patterns
of creation could develop. The scientist would assume these patterns have been
guided by aspects of the laws of physics and chemistry which we simply have not
vet quite grasped; others may assume the hand of God. As our insight
becomes more
penetrating, how different will these two views really seem?
Insights from Astronomy
Much of the modest amount we know as scientists about our origins
comes from astronomy,
as guessed by Alexander Pope when he wrote, somewhat overhopefully,
of the astronomer:
He who through vast immensity can pierce
See worlds on worlds compose one universe
Observe how system into systens cons
What other planets circle other sons
What varied being peoples every star
May tell why Heav'n has made us as we are.
Within the last decade there has been a remarkable discovery of microwaves-that
is, short radio-like waves -which uniformly pervade all space. We can presently
understand their existence only if they represent radiation left over
for us from
an initial enormous explosion of the universe. This radiation, more
than any other
one piece of evidence, seems to lead inevitably to the conclusion
that the universe
did indeed have a unique moment when it was small, enormously hot,
and expanding
rapidly-the so called "big bang". Some scientists still doubt such a
conclusion, and continue to look for an explanation in terms of an
ever-existing,
never changing universe. But so far they have been unsuccessful. The microwave
radiation we now see
must have been created during the first one hundredth
of 1% of the lifetime of our universe-a lifetime which from this origin until
now must be about fifteen billion years. Thus we have remarkable
scientific proof
that there was indeed a unique moment in the creation of the
universe. In addition,
our most powerful telescopes seem recently to have penetrated far enough into
our universe to approach its boundaries, and catch a glimpse of how it looked
when much younger.
Why all this lapse of time from the origin of the universe, about
fifteen billion
years ago, until the creation of man, whose existence on the earth surely isn't
much older than a few million years? Are we a random afterthought? Hardly that,
for we understand now that before complex life could be created, materials of
the universe had to he properly cooked and processed. Stars were
formed, and went
through their cycle of billions of years of life until, with a
majestic display,
they exploded and spewed out the heavy chemical elements it was their destiny
to produce from the materials available in the new-born universe.
Elements which
they emitted were gathered together into new stars, the so-called
second generation
stars of which our sun is one. Thins the sun and its satellite the
earth can contain
some of the needed heavy chemical elements such as iron for blood, calcium for
bones, and iodine for metabolic chemistry, without which our life
would be difficult
to imagine. just these preparatory processes would require, from the
nature of
physical laws they followed, almost half the life-span of the universe.
About four and a half billion years ago, shortly after the formation
of our second,
or possibly thirdgeneration star which is the sun, materials of the
earth solidified.
One and a half billion years later, that is about three billion years ago, life
began on it and we can trace from that time its steady and fairly
orderly development.
Are We Alone?
Was this development, eventually producing man, peculiar and unique?
Are we alone
in the universe, or is our planet one among billions which support
sensitive and
intelligent life? The total number of stars in our galaxy, each of which might
possibly support life around it, is about one hundred billion. But ours is only
one of ten billion such galaxies within the universe. Hence, with one hundred
billion times ten billions of different stars within the universe, it
is natural
to conclude that our existence is insignificant, and that life must
have developed
myriads of times, with some forms much superior to our own. However, as in the
case of the monkeys typing randomly, something more may have been needed than
just all those random chances.
We do not know just how planets are formed, nor hence the chance of a
star having
a planet such as ours. Recently geophysicists have discovered that there was an
enormous stellar explosion in the immediate vicinity of our star the sun just
before the planets were formed. Is some special circumstance like
this required?
The nature of a planet on which life can begin clearly is rather specific and
circumscribed. How likely is it" that conditions as favorable as those on
earth occur in other planets? If there did happen to be a planet of the right
qualities, would appropriate
A simple calculation shows that one billion monkeys typing randomly as fast as they can 24 hours a day on one billion typewriters for the entire lifetime of the universe as we know it would probably not yet have typed out the correct sequence of letters in the title The Encyclopedia Brittanica.
molecules inevitably come together to form the complex assemblages which life
seems to require? What is the nature of the step from apes to man, producing a
mind which conceives of astronomy, or of studying its own origins? We
know a great
deal and yet little of such matters.
Biochemists have made convincing arguments about what kinds of molecules might
initiate the life processes. Recently radio astronomers have learned that all
of the simple molecules which biochemists believe are needed for a start in the
process of building lifeall of those needed for the reproduction of
the simplest
polypeptides or protein-like substances-can be found in dust clouds
in interstellar
space, even before these clouds gather into stars and planets. But now, given
these materials, scientists are still groping to see how they might have built
up the complex forms needed for reproductive life.
What definite hope can we have of knowing whether we are alone, or
our civilization
is repeated and surpassed billions of times among the stars? Even the
possibilities
of knowing are impossible to state, because the most important
scientific discoveries
are frequently unimagined until they surprise us. For the moment, our best hope
of knowledge of other life is to leave the laboratory and go
exploring. Some civilization,
perhaps only a few hundred years more advanced than ours, might have
already guessed
at our existence and be trying to signal us. What would it mean to
mail's perspective
if suddenly we received messages and wisdom from other worlds? We've listened
very carefully, guessing what kind of signal might he used, and heard
nothing.
Advances in Space Work
Advances in space work have considerably enlarged our explorations. It has been
commonly thought that on some of our sister planets, such as Mars,
Venus, or even
the Moon in an early state when it might have had an atmosphere,
other life could
exist. While the Moon now has no atmosphere, it is marked by rills and valleys
which are difficult to explain except as due to a running fluid, such as water,
sometime in the past.
Unfortunately, while our explorations there continue to
intrigue us with information about the early history of the moon and the solar
system, the Apollo flights have show that water and organic materials are rare
enough on the lunar surface to dash most hopes of finding traces even of past
life there. Recent measurements also show that the surface of Venus
is overwhelmingly
hot: 600 deg. Fahrenheit and far above the boiling point of water. Such
temperatures
are quite inimicahle to any form of life we can presently imagine. Could there
he life possibly in the cooler upper atmosphere of its clouds? Just possibly.
Jupiter, Saturn, and the other outer planets are generally too cold
to be likely
supporters of life, Mercury too close to the sun and too hot.
Recent scientific discoveries show us clearly that, at least within our solar system of nine planets, our earth is truly a gem, and its life unique. Perhaps . . . we are indeed alone and unique in our universe.
Mars now seems our only remaining reasonable host of life. Telescopic views of
Mars have for some time allowed us glimpses of polar caps on this planet which
change with the seasons and are very suggestive of the
life-supporting conditions
with which we are familiar on earth. However, recent closer views of Mars from
spacecraft show that these polar caps are of frozen carbon dioxide rather than
friendly ice and water, its atmosphere is exceedingly thin, and its
surface pockmarked
with craters indicating conditions much more like those on the Moon than on the
earth. Further exploration of Mars, or other bodies within our solar
system, should
give us more perspective on our planet earth, tell us much about its history,
and the conditions on earth before life began. Hopefully, we may find on Mars
small and primitive forms of life to give us further exciting insight, but we
now
know not to expect more.
Thus, recent scientific discoveries show us clearly that, at least within our
solar system of nine planets, our earth is truly a gem, and its life unique. We
know further that it will at least be a long time before man directly
encounters
any extraterrestial creature remotely like himself; perhaps, contrary to many
generations of fiction and to the common expectations of many
scientists in recent
decades, we are indeed alone and unique in our universe.
How our developing scientific understanding either changes or
reinforces religious
views is a question each individual will answer for himself. Yet any
substantial
success in the common search by religious or scientific approaches
for the origins
and meaning of life must inevitably mold man's view of himself, and
recent recognition
of the special character of this planet and its life can only
heighten man's awe.
For the future, human thought and instincts, the innate creators of
science, will
surely lead us further in exploring our origins and towards understanding man's
remarkable situation. If such understanding substantially increases
our sensitivity
to the wonders we see, and to the sacredness of life, it will serve
us well.
*
Dr. Charles II. Townes, University Professor, University of
California, Berkeley, received world-wide acclaim in 1964
when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the
maser. He was
formerly provost and professor of physics at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology,
professor of physics at Columbia University, and visiting professor
at the Universities
of Paris and Tokyo. He is a past president of the American Physical
Society. This
paper is a portion of a presentation by Dr. Townes to the General Assembly of
the United Presbyterian Church, as a part of a program entitled,
"Science-Technology-the
Creator's Apprentice," Rochester, New York, May 20, 1971.