An amazing debate about the origin of life and the cosmic fine-tuning between a Christian and a materialist agnostic. John Lennox is AWESOME in this debate, and he only talks for a tiny part of the debate. He’s very gracious, and focused the discussion on the areas that we care about. Paul Davies is an EXCELLENT scientist and well aware of what Christians believe. This is a great debate, very easy to listen to. Justin, the moderator, does a great job controlling a fantastic discussion.
What does it take for life to get going in our universe? Is there intelligence in the stars or right under our nose? Renowned astrophysicist Paul Davies chats to Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox.
A popular science author, Davies is also the Chair of the SETI post detection task force. His latest book “The Eerie Silence” which marks SETI’s 50th anniversary examines the likelihood of the universe producing life elsewhere.
John Lennox is a Christian Mathematician and philosopher. He is the author of “God’s Undertaker: has science buried God?” and has debated Richard Dawkins on several occasions.
Davies’ work on the fine tuning of the universe for life has been sympathetic to theism. In this programme Lennox challenges Davies to look to design not just in cosmology but in the cell. They also chat about what the discovery of ET would mean for Christian theology.
- Is there meaning in the universe?
- We have no evidence for or against intelligent life elsewhere in the universe
- The vastness of the universe makes me think there is life elsewhere
- Humans are capable of observing and understanding the universe
- It seems the universe has the ability to create observers to understand it
- If one species has this ability, then we should expect others to do it
- The fact that we can observe the universe and do science has cosmic significance
- Our rare habitable planet and our ability to do science is suggestive of purpose
- So science itself points to an extra-terrestrial intelligence: GOD
- The complexity of life and consciousness itself points away from atheism
- Monotheism gave birth to science
- Human minds capable of doing science are not compatible with atheistic materialism
- Why do you say that either we are the only life or there are many different kinds of life?
- There are lots of factors that have to be met to have a site for simple life
- These are related to the fine-tuning of cosmic constants, e.g. gravitational force
- But there are also factors that have to be met for originating intelligent life
- Things like convergence, self-organization, etc.
- So the cosmic requirements and evolutionary requirements are different
- Darwinian evolution doesn’t solve the problem of the origin of life
- 50 years ago, skepticism about alien life existing anywhere was excessive
- Today, credulity about alien life exiting everywhere is excessive
- The naturalist is searching for a process that creates life easily
- Paul agrees that there is no theory for a naturalistic origin of life
- This is fatal for the idea that life can emerge elsewhere in the universe
- We have not discovered any law that produces life without an intelligence
- Consider the method used by SETI used to detect an alien intelligence
- Why can’t this method be applied to the origin of life on Earth?
- Why can’t an intelligence created specified complexity (functional information)?
- Why can’t an intelligence created epigenetics and protein folding?
- Darwinian evolution can add new biological information after life begins
- Darwinian evolution assumes a mutating replicating life form to act on
- You can’t generate specified complexity by using physical laws
- You can’t generate specified complexity by chance
- At this point we are guessing as to how life might have formed
- Why do we have to rule out an intelligent cause a priori
- If you can recognize an intelligence in outer space, why not in living systems?
- I don’t mind the word “intelligence”, it’s the word “signal”
- I oppose the idea that God or aliens manipulated physical stuff to create life
- It’s an “ugly explanation and very unappealing both theologically and scientifically”
- I prefer the idea that the universe has processes to self-organize and create complexity
- When it comes to supernatural meddling by God, “I don’t want that”
- If I were God, I would create the universe so that I would not have to intervene
- I think God would be more clever if he did not have to intervene
- My preferences about what is “clever” determines what scientific conclusions are allowed
- Humans already have experience with their non-material minds to move atoms (matter)
- If God is a mind, then there is no reason why he cannot move atoms (matter)
- My mind is physical, so are you saying that God is physical?
- If God intervenes in the universe, then what is he doing now?
- There is a distinction between acts of creation and providential upholding the universe
- God is also speaking to people and drawing humans toward him
- God is spirit, not material
- How can a non-physical entity cause effects on the physical world?
- What science reveals that there is information needed for the origin of life
- Information requires an intelligence to create it, just as with human who write books
- That’s not God of the gaps – it’s an inference based on what we know today
- We may be able to explain the origin of life later, using matter, law and chance
- What you’re saying is that God tinkers with the genome
- If you say that God intervened once, then he intervenes all the time, everywhere!
- I don’t want a God who tinkers in the genome
- if God could intervene in the universe that would remove its intelligibility
- Look at the cover of this book – when I read words, I infer an intelligence
- There are bad gaps that the progress of science closes
- There are good gaps that science opens, showing the need for intelligence
- On the one hand, you say we have no theory of the origin of life
- On the other hand, you know that an intelligent designer wasn’t involved
- If we don’t know how life began, why do you rule God out a priori?
- What scientists want to do is to explain the universe without involving God
- naturalists want to use science to discover only materialist explanations
- The purpose of SETI is to prove that there is other life in the universe
- This would then show that there is a naturalistic way of making life
- I agree that information in living systems is real hard to explain materialistically
- I believe in the power of emergence
- We might discover laws that prove that complexity can emerge without intelligence
- The discovery of alien life would help to show that no intelligence is needed to make life
- What sort of cosmic fine-tuning is needed at the Big Bang for life to occur?
- It’s true that the universe appears extremely fine-tuned for life to exist
- The typical answer from naturalists is that there is a multiverse
- But the multiverse “falls far short” of providing a good answer to the fine-tuning
- It’s irrational to appeal to massive numbers of unseen universes to explain fine-tuning
- The design and purpose seen in the universe may be due to God or it may be emergent
- The fine-tuning is real and the multiverse is a desperate attempt to evade the creator
- Sir Martin Rees (an atheist) says he “prefers” the multiverse to a designer
- Scientists are not supposed to prefer anything except what is true
- Would the discovery of aliens hurt Christianity, because of the belief in the uniqueness of humans?
- Christians believe that Jesus came to save HUMANS specifically, not animals or aliens
- If we were to discover intelligent aliens, it would challenge traditional religions
- What will God do with alien races? Multiple incarnations? Or just preach the gospel to them?
- We don’t know if the aliens exist, first of all – it’s speculative
- The Bible teaches that humans bear the image of God
- We just don’t know whether alien species are also made in God’s image