What do you think?
Rate this book
Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator
For nearly a century, the central theological message of science seemed to be that there was no need for theology: science could stand alone to explain the universe. But today, that message is changing. In this volume, a gallery of respected scientists describes new developments in their fields and their relationship with theological views of the universe. Contributors include Owen Gingerich, Russell Stannard, Paul Davies, Walter R. Hearn, Robert Russell, Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, John C. Eccles, Daniel H. Osmond, and David Wilcox.
- GenresReligion
216 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1994
1 person is currently reading
32 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 9, 2025
A SELECTION OF ESSAYS BY A VARIETY OF SCIENTISTS SUPPORTING ‘MEANING,’ ETC.
John Marks Templeton (1912-2008) was an investment fund manager, and great philanthropist, who also in 1972 established the ‘Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.’ He wrote in the Introduction of this 1994 collection of essays, “This book was written to bring a new scientific perspective to the age-old question of purpose. It had been assumed since perhaps the middle of the last century that science had put to rest any idea that there was a Creator whose design had brought the universe its form and process… But in the last twenty or thirty years the number of scientists raising philosophical and religious questions as a result of recent scientific discoveries has multiplied.
“This volume contains some of those questions… about ultimate reality and purpose and meaning. The scientists who contributed to this book covered a broad spectrum of theological and philosophical persuasion. Yet they all express something of the wonder of the universe we begin to know through science, and all see the evidence for a deep meaning written into the laws and processes of nature… As we begin to understand our own limitations as finite creatures in a vast universe of infinite complexity and intricacy, perhaps we can be released from our prejudices … and open our minds to the great plan of which we are a part.” (Pg. 7)
Russell Stannard observes, “physicists have come to terms with a future that is seemingly not as tenuous and uncertain as our practical experience of life would have us believe. If, in some mysterious sense of the word ‘exist,’ it is valid to say that the future ‘exists’ on a par with the present, this must surely go some way toward adding plausibility to the idea that God might have knowledge of it. His having knowledge of it then lends a distinctive quality to the notion of ‘purpose’ as applied to God.” (Pg. 38)
Paul Davies suggests, “Physicists are often heard to be asking, ‘Why would nature bother with this?’ or ‘What’s the point of that?’ … Experience has shown that nature does share our sense of economy, efficiency, beauty, and mathematical subtlety, and this approach to research can often pay dividends. Most physicists believe that beneath the complexities of their subject lies an elegant and powerful unity, and that progress can be made by spotting the mathematical ‘tricks’ that nature has exploited to generate an interestingly diverse and complex universe from this underlying simplicity.” (Pg. 47)
He adds, “Undoubtedly the most serious challenge to the design argument comes from the hypothesis of many universes, or multiple realities… [A] point that is often glossed over is the fact that in all of the many-universe theories that derive from real physics (as opposed to simply fantasizing about the existence of other worlds) the laws of physics are the same in all the worlds. The selection of universes on offer is restricted to those that are PHYSICALLY possible, as opposed to those that can be imagined. There will be many more universes that are logically possible, but contradict the laws of physics. So we cannot account for nature’s LAWFULNESS this way, unless one extends the many-universe idea to encompass all possible models of behavior.” (Pg. 53)
Arthur Peacocke suggests, “There are very good grounds for believing that God might be ‘personal,’ or ‘at least personal,’ or even, if one is more robust, ‘a person.’ … From the scientific ‘anthropic principle,’ we can infer that the world does seem to be finely tuned with respect to many physical features in a way conducive to the emergence of living organisms and so of human beings… The presence of humanity in this universe… represents an inherent built-in potentiality of that physical universe in the sense that intelligent, self-conscious life was bound eventually to appear although its FORM was not prescribed by those same fundamental parameters and relationships that made it possible.” (Pg. 97)
John Polkinghorne asks, “So has the image of a purposive Creator faded away[?]… Not at all! Rather, we have begun to look for signs of him … in the fundamental structure of the universe. After all, to a theist whose regularities that we call the laws of nature are reflections of the faithful will of God. We must therefore expect that his purpose will be made manifest, not in the occasional abrogation of those laws---as if God were suddenly to change his mind---but in the very nature of those laws themselves. Their actual existence---that we live in a cosmos endowed with a fundamental order, transparent to our understanding and characterized by a profound rational beauty---is itself capable of being understood as the sign of aim behind the flux of the world’s becoming. The argument from intelligibility is an important insight of natural theology. But we can go much further than that, for we have come to realize that the detailed and precise form that these laws actually take is a necessary precondition for the universe’s fruitful history. This remarkable scientific insight, that a world capable of evolving beings like men and women is a very special world, is called the ‘anthropic principle.’” (Pg. 106)
He continues, “The particular and delicate balances necessary for a potent universe are not only to be discerned in the circumstances of astrophysics. They seem to be present at all stages of cosmic and, eventually, terrestrial history… changes in chemistry and the properties of matter that would result from a variation in the intrinsic strength of electromagnetism … would be expected completely to alter the remarkable properties of the chemistry of carbon and the behavior of water, which seem to be crucial for the possibility of life. This is just a selection of the considerations that encourage the view that a universe in which the force strengths differed only slightly from those that we experience would be one that was sterile in its history.” (Pg. 110-111)
He addresses the objection, “If there were a great variety of different universes, each with its own physical law and circumstance, then it would not be very surprising if within that great portfolio of possibility, there should be one that just happens to satisfy the right conditions for anthropic fruitfulness. Of course, that is the one in which we live, because we could appear in no other.” He argues, “It is very important to be clear on what kind of explanation is being offered here… since we have adequate scientific motivation only to speak of the one universe of our actual experience, it is in fact a metaphysical hypothesis that is being proposed.” (Pg. 114)
John C. Eccles states, “The prebiotic world had a material structure that was ‘poised’ for the origin of life with the essential elements and molecules. From that still mysterious origin the way was open for biological evolution of the first living cells. There was a transformation in the survival process of these cells, which we can call ‘living purpose.’” (Pg. 116-117)
This book will be of keen interest to those wanting to reconcile religion and scientific progress.
John Marks Templeton (1912-2008) was an investment fund manager, and great philanthropist, who also in 1972 established the ‘Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities.’ He wrote in the Introduction of this 1994 collection of essays, “This book was written to bring a new scientific perspective to the age-old question of purpose. It had been assumed since perhaps the middle of the last century that science had put to rest any idea that there was a Creator whose design had brought the universe its form and process… But in the last twenty or thirty years the number of scientists raising philosophical and religious questions as a result of recent scientific discoveries has multiplied.
“This volume contains some of those questions… about ultimate reality and purpose and meaning. The scientists who contributed to this book covered a broad spectrum of theological and philosophical persuasion. Yet they all express something of the wonder of the universe we begin to know through science, and all see the evidence for a deep meaning written into the laws and processes of nature… As we begin to understand our own limitations as finite creatures in a vast universe of infinite complexity and intricacy, perhaps we can be released from our prejudices … and open our minds to the great plan of which we are a part.” (Pg. 7)
Russell Stannard observes, “physicists have come to terms with a future that is seemingly not as tenuous and uncertain as our practical experience of life would have us believe. If, in some mysterious sense of the word ‘exist,’ it is valid to say that the future ‘exists’ on a par with the present, this must surely go some way toward adding plausibility to the idea that God might have knowledge of it. His having knowledge of it then lends a distinctive quality to the notion of ‘purpose’ as applied to God.” (Pg. 38)
Paul Davies suggests, “Physicists are often heard to be asking, ‘Why would nature bother with this?’ or ‘What’s the point of that?’ … Experience has shown that nature does share our sense of economy, efficiency, beauty, and mathematical subtlety, and this approach to research can often pay dividends. Most physicists believe that beneath the complexities of their subject lies an elegant and powerful unity, and that progress can be made by spotting the mathematical ‘tricks’ that nature has exploited to generate an interestingly diverse and complex universe from this underlying simplicity.” (Pg. 47)
He adds, “Undoubtedly the most serious challenge to the design argument comes from the hypothesis of many universes, or multiple realities… [A] point that is often glossed over is the fact that in all of the many-universe theories that derive from real physics (as opposed to simply fantasizing about the existence of other worlds) the laws of physics are the same in all the worlds. The selection of universes on offer is restricted to those that are PHYSICALLY possible, as opposed to those that can be imagined. There will be many more universes that are logically possible, but contradict the laws of physics. So we cannot account for nature’s LAWFULNESS this way, unless one extends the many-universe idea to encompass all possible models of behavior.” (Pg. 53)
Arthur Peacocke suggests, “There are very good grounds for believing that God might be ‘personal,’ or ‘at least personal,’ or even, if one is more robust, ‘a person.’ … From the scientific ‘anthropic principle,’ we can infer that the world does seem to be finely tuned with respect to many physical features in a way conducive to the emergence of living organisms and so of human beings… The presence of humanity in this universe… represents an inherent built-in potentiality of that physical universe in the sense that intelligent, self-conscious life was bound eventually to appear although its FORM was not prescribed by those same fundamental parameters and relationships that made it possible.” (Pg. 97)
John Polkinghorne asks, “So has the image of a purposive Creator faded away[?]… Not at all! Rather, we have begun to look for signs of him … in the fundamental structure of the universe. After all, to a theist whose regularities that we call the laws of nature are reflections of the faithful will of God. We must therefore expect that his purpose will be made manifest, not in the occasional abrogation of those laws---as if God were suddenly to change his mind---but in the very nature of those laws themselves. Their actual existence---that we live in a cosmos endowed with a fundamental order, transparent to our understanding and characterized by a profound rational beauty---is itself capable of being understood as the sign of aim behind the flux of the world’s becoming. The argument from intelligibility is an important insight of natural theology. But we can go much further than that, for we have come to realize that the detailed and precise form that these laws actually take is a necessary precondition for the universe’s fruitful history. This remarkable scientific insight, that a world capable of evolving beings like men and women is a very special world, is called the ‘anthropic principle.’” (Pg. 106)
He continues, “The particular and delicate balances necessary for a potent universe are not only to be discerned in the circumstances of astrophysics. They seem to be present at all stages of cosmic and, eventually, terrestrial history… changes in chemistry and the properties of matter that would result from a variation in the intrinsic strength of electromagnetism … would be expected completely to alter the remarkable properties of the chemistry of carbon and the behavior of water, which seem to be crucial for the possibility of life. This is just a selection of the considerations that encourage the view that a universe in which the force strengths differed only slightly from those that we experience would be one that was sterile in its history.” (Pg. 110-111)
He addresses the objection, “If there were a great variety of different universes, each with its own physical law and circumstance, then it would not be very surprising if within that great portfolio of possibility, there should be one that just happens to satisfy the right conditions for anthropic fruitfulness. Of course, that is the one in which we live, because we could appear in no other.” He argues, “It is very important to be clear on what kind of explanation is being offered here… since we have adequate scientific motivation only to speak of the one universe of our actual experience, it is in fact a metaphysical hypothesis that is being proposed.” (Pg. 114)
John C. Eccles states, “The prebiotic world had a material structure that was ‘poised’ for the origin of life with the essential elements and molecules. From that still mysterious origin the way was open for biological evolution of the first living cells. There was a transformation in the survival process of these cells, which we can call ‘living purpose.’” (Pg. 116-117)
This book will be of keen interest to those wanting to reconcile religion and scientific progress.
April 5, 2019
A combination of some fairly interesting essays, some fairly dull ones, and some that are completely incomprehensible to laymen like myself.
It’s clear that each contributor has been free to present there own viewpoint, unfiltered. Unfortunately, this means that one essay often completely contradicts the next or relies on arguments that the previous essay debunked. It’s a little messy and unlikely to do much to persuade an atheist or agnostic that these people have a coherent argument, which is a shame.
It’s clear that each contributor has been free to present there own viewpoint, unfiltered. Unfortunately, this means that one essay often completely contradicts the next or relies on arguments that the previous essay debunked. It’s a little messy and unlikely to do much to persuade an atheist or agnostic that these people have a coherent argument, which is a shame.
September 1, 2011
By the middle of the last century, science had at last triumphed over superstition, and science had also, to a degree, put aside the notion that a Creator existed. However, many scientists see no reason to separate the two. Albert Einstein is famously quoted as saying, "Science without religion is blind, and religion without science is lame." This book contains ten thought-provoking essays from scientists who see evidence of design in the universe.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews