Customer Reviews

The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery

5 star:		(53)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

I got this book as soon as it became available, so I thought I'd be the first one to write a review. I've followed the debates over design and fine tuning for a while, and had heard this book was in the pipeline. I am thoroughly impressed with the clarity of its argument, the elegance of its prose, and the staggering level of scholarship displayed in its pages. I have no doubt that it will raise the level of debate on the larger issues about the meaning of it all. The book is richly illustrated with both color and black and white pictures.

Gonzalez and Richards' (G and R) argument is something that, so far as I know, has not really been discussed before, namely, that the universe is fine-tuned for scientific discovery itself. This is a completely new angle. But the book is more than an argument for purpose in the universe. In fact, in many ways, it's a sweeping overview of the history of scientific discovery itself.

I would like to say something about the Publishers Weekly review that is posted on Amazon.com. It's baffling. I thought Publishers Weekly reviews were supposed to be more or less descriptive rather than editorial. But this review must have been written by someone who either didn't read The Privileged Planet carefully, or didn't understand the argument. First of all, the description of their treatment of habitability is inaccurate. G and R don't claim that Earth is the only habitable planet. They argue that, given what we already know about what it takes to make a habitable planet, such planets are probably rare. And they definitely don't argue that just because the Earth is well suited for life, therefore it was designed. In fact, they go to great lengths to show why that's not a very good argument.

The reviewer also misunderstood the central point of the book, or what the authors call "the correlation between habitability and measurability." In fact, the review turns the very thesis of the book into an afterthought: "In addition, the authors contend, the universe itself is designed for discovery." Huh? That's the point of the book, and it is developed and reiterated many times, so I don't know how a reviewer could miss it. The argument is fairly straightforward: the (universal) requirements for complex observers like human beings also provide the best (overall) places for making scientific discoveries. In other words, observers (embodied observers, anyway) will find themselves in the best places for making various significant kinds of scientific discoveries. Some of their examples, like eclipses, are, frankly, a little eerie. The rarity of conditions for complex life is one of the premises of their argument for purpose, but it's not the only premise.

Finally, the Publishers Weekly reviewer warns readers "that the vast majority of scientists reject the intelligent design argument." Why would that be in a review? Did the reviewer poll all scientists? And which intelligent design argument is he referring to? There's more than one. In the ancient world there was Plato's, Cicero's and Thomas Aquinas'. In the 19th century, there was William Paley's. In recent years, there have been design arguments from Michael Denton, Michael Behe and William Dembski in biology, to John Barrow, Frank Tipler, John Leslie, and others in physics. The argument in The Privileged Planet is related to these arguments, but it is also different. Even those who are critical of design arguments in biology might like the argument in The Privileged Planet, since it has to do with the design of the universe as a whole, and not with individual items within the universe. It's most related to the fine-tuning arguments in physics, but it deals with a new class of evidence. I don't think their argument would differ if Darwin's theory of evolution were true in all its details. In any case, the book should be judged on its own merits, and not just lumped in with a generic and somewhat dismissive phrase like "the intelligent design argument."

Finally, how can a reviewer make bald assertions about the general reception of an argument which isn't even known yet? (The Publishers Weekly review came out before the book was even available at Amazon.com.) Is he clairvoyant?

I do hope that readers will read the book for themselves. And I also hope that future reviews will be more careful in how they describe this important and inspiring book.

Co-authored by two Discovery Institute Fellows, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet presents a new form of design argument which can be applied to the level of the cosmos. Design proponents have long held that the physical constants of nature and properties of our solar system appear finely tuned and specified to allow for advanced life. But Richards and Gonzalez take this argument to a new level by arguing that the same set of circumstances which permit advanced life are also optimized for a range of scientific discoveries.

Chapter eight, for instance, centers on research by Gonzalez that was featured in a cover story of Scientific American in 2001. Like our solar system's habitable zone, our galaxy has a habitable zone as well. This broken ring roughly have way from the galaxy's center is far enough away from the radiation-filled center of the galaxy, between its radiation-filled spiral arms, but not so far out that it lacks the heavy elements needed for terrestrial planets like Earth. This location is also well situated for making a range of scientific discovery. While other locations might allow improved observation of this or that feature, the Galactic Habitable Zone offers an overall better location for a range of important scientific observations. This is but one of many instances of what seems to be a consistent correlation between the requirements for life and the requirements for scientific discovery.

But any book coauthored by a philosopher must investigate the philosophical implications. Richards and Gonzalez recounts that a historical myth developed, according to which, when it was discovered that the Earth was neither the center of the Solar System nor the Universe, Earth became insignificant. This mythology was popularized by materialists like Carl Sagan who preferred to portray Earth to the public as just a lucky but insignificant pale blue dot floating through the uncaring depths of space.

The Privileged Planet argues that there is a weak historical and theological basis for the claim that Christianity requires Earth to be at the center of the action. Moreover, there is a growing body of scientific evidence from a range of disciplines showing that great care and intelligent design was taken in our cosmic placement. According to the evidence cited in the book, both the design of cosmic laws and the specific architecture of our solar system, including the sizes and relationship of Earth and moon, permit the existence of advanced life with the opportunities to make profound scientific discoveries.

The two halves of this book are markedly different. In the first half, the authors recount many facts and figures from the sciences, mostly astronomy. This half is readable, but the details require close attention. Some reviewers have complained that the book contains factual errors but have not said what they are. Considering the huge amount of material covered, it would be surprising if there were not a few errors. Not being an expert, I can only assume that most of the facts are correctly stated.

The second half is philosophical, treating things like the "Copernican principle" and the implications of the scientific findings. Naturally, this half is not restricted to hard data, but includes the authors' views of what the data imply. Many philosophically illiterate writers stumble on this ground, but G&R show considerable savvy.

Many outspoken scientists say that scientific findings imply that God does not exist, or that human beings are merely the last freakish product of the hurrying of matter; these authors disagree. If your mind is made up that only the former philosophy is legitimate, there is no use reading this book. If you would like to read a well-informed and reasonable defense of the latter position, this book is a good start.

I first heard Guillermo Gonzalez present his ideas about our place in the universe being designed to facilitate scientific discovery at a conference at Yale in the fall of 2000. For me this was the high point of the conference. Jay Richards and Guillermo have since developed this idea, providing numerous lines of evidence to show that without a host of contingent facts being just-so, our scientific understanding would be impossible or severely attenuated.

The idea that the world and features of it are designed to help us understand the world and those features constitutes a remarkable insight. Gonzalez and Richards apply this insight mainly at the level of cosmology and astrophysics. But it promises to apply also in biology. Indeed, some preliminary work in the bioinformatics literature is suggesting that biological systems contain information of no functional use to the organism as such, but information that is useful to the investigator in examining the organism and trying to understand it.

The Privileged Planet breaks new ground. Einstein found it incomprehensible why the world should be comprehensible. Gonzalez and Richards begin to provide an answer to Einstein's perplexity.

Science is not supposed to answer questions of "why?" Only the "what?" questions are considered acceptable grist for the scientific mill. Unfortunately for traditional science, the "why?" questions are some of the most important and intriguing. For example, Einstein was continually puzzled by the fact that humans can understand what are biologically irrelevant phenomena (e.g., black holes). Indeed, what survival value is linked to our ability to investigate and understand aspects of the universe beyond this earth? We can easily propagate this planet without knowing Earth is part of a solar system which in turn is part of a galaxy system. This ability has no evolutionary value, yet our ability to know persists and even grows. So, what's up?

Richards and Gonzalez have an intriguing answer to a troubling question: Why is Earth so well-suited for complex life and observation of the universe by its inhabitants? More critically, is there evidence, scientific evidence, to suggest design-a purpose that explains more than the sheer permutations and probabilities which allow for complex life-form existence?

Guillermo Gonzalez (Ph.D., Washington), Astrobiologist, and Jay W. Richards, Philosopher (Ph.D., Princeton), seem to be obsessed with finding some sort of reason behind irregular phenomena. They seems particularly obsessed with challenging some fundamental principles of scientific investigation. Not all obsessions are bad, and when coupled with premise challenges, they can be mind-boggling. Such is the case with The Privileged Planet.

Copernicus discovered the Earth was not the center of the solar system, and certainly not the center of the universe. But the medicine we ingested intellectually to avoid the toxicity of anthrocentrism has had a negative side effect-we have assumed, unnecessarily according to Richards and Gonzalez, that the Earth is not special. Sagan called it a little blue dot in a vast cosmic arena. Sagan is clearly right quantitatively, but qualitatively? Perhaps there is more to the Earth than its size.

Qualitatively, why is the Earth so well configured for life? Theists, of course, have a ready answer. But, science normally leans on the huge ledge of time which affords google-sized permutation possibilities. "Why?" is not a particularly popular nor socially-appropriate question to be asked by a scientist. Some fear losing their credibility by asking "Why?"

Richards & Gonzalez are fearless. Challenging traditional premises, they re-examine the empirical record in biology, chemistry, astrobiology, and especially physics. A rather startling conclusion accumulatively emerges: rather than being a pale blue dot insignificantly placed in a galaxy, evidence supports a quite different conclusion-the Earth is uniquely positioned to support complex life, and-here's the real news-uniquely positioned to observe the universe. Einstein was puzzled that humans have such ability; it is a challenge for biologists as well. Just what is the survival value of being able to understand, for example, a black hole?

Scientists who assumed a deity are not unusual; Newton, Pascal, Copernicus, and Einstein are just a few of the more famous. But, today is different. Deity is neither a premise nor a possibility in traditional science. And to be fair, Richards and Gonzalez are not arguing for deity, per se, but arguing that the empirical evidence of life, chemistry, astrobiology, and especially physics accumulatively suggest purpose, not random permutation.

Amidst the evidence supporting a purposeful design is the rather startling precision of the relationship between the moon's mass/distance from the Earth and mass/distance from the sun. One scholar extols, "were it not for the moon, we would not be." In fact, Gonzalez discovered that the size of the moon is precisely what allows solar eclipses to be scientifically rich experiments. If it were slightly smaller, or larger, we could not observe solar flares (and starlight bending from the sun's mass, a major confirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity). Furthermore, it is the moon's precise mass that stabilizes the Earth's axis to maintain a temperate climate whereby complex life forms can exist.

Richards and Gonzalez continued to reveal a variety of accumulated evidence which supports two pillars of thought: (1) the Earth is particularly well-suited for complex life forms, and (2) the Earth is particularly well-suited for observation. Specifically, Gonzalez argues that both sides of the equation must be considered; i.e., not only the number of possibilities, but also the number of factors that must be precisely "in tune" to support complex life-forms and an observational platform. Small changes in just one factor (e.g., gravity) remove all possibilities of complex life. And there are more than a score of factors which must be precisely tuned not only to a given level, but also tuned systemically with all the other factors. It turns out the probability for a well-suited environment for observing complex life-forms trumps the "other side of the equation."

The debate will continue, and it should. After all, there are few questions more important than "purpose." To be driven by purpose is one definition of obsession, and Richards and Gonzalez are obsessed. Perhaps we too need to be obsessed-as scholars we have some work to do. Surely, there is more to our purpose than mere propagation.

D. Thomas Porter, Ph.D.,
School of Mass Communications,
University of South Florida

This is one of the most thought provoking documentaries I have EVER watched. I have had 2 major careers so far in life. First I worked in the Information Technology field for about 20 years and now I have worked in education for about 13 years. Beyond my college education, these fields have taught me many additional things. I have wrestled with life questions since college in the 70s and I will continue to revisit my perspectives and beliefs all of my life, but of all the documentaries I have viewed and books I have read this is one of the most seminal. Whether you agree with it or not it will impact the thinking of any open-minded person and I suspect even of those with a closed mind. In one sense we are all closed minded based upon our to-date experiences. This documentary is one of those pivotal encounters that can be zeitgeist changing or reinforcing. I highly recommend it.

_The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery_ by astronomer and physicist Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute provides a fascinating account of how some of the more recent developments at the frontiers of science have made possible a revival of the "design argument". In viewing earth from space, two emotional reactions are found to occur in many sensitive people. The first may be called the "pale blue dot" reaction (described by Carl Sagan) that we occupy an extremely obscure and miniscule location of the universe and that "we are not special". This view became popular for a time because discoveries in science (in particular astronomy and cosmology) seemed to indicate that such a view was appropriate. The second type of reaction is the more religious reaction - a recognition of our importance in the cosmos. For a long time it was believed that this reaction was discredited and that we were ultimately a meaningless speck in the universe; however, recent discoveries have not only made such a reaction viable, but have also seemed to show that it is the appropriate one. It should be noted though that both such reactions are ultimately rooted in feelings (thus, the reply of "wishful thinking" applies to both and thus cannot be used as a criticism of one or the other). The central thesis of this book is that unlike the picture presented of earth as the "pale blue dot" (which still seems to hold sway among many scientists, materialists, and some sector of the educated population) that actually earth may better be understood as occupying a unique place in the cosmos that is in fact "designed for discovery". The authors divide this book into three basic sections: the first deals with our local environment (the earth itself and the solar system), the second deals with the broader universe (the Milky Way galaxy, our galactic cluster, and the universe itself), the third deals with some implications of this (such as implications for the search for intelligent life in the universe (SETI) as well as design and the anthropic principle). Indeed, it seems to be a central contention of this book that the design inference (often believed to be discredited) is making a comeback and may even play some role in the science (particularly cosmology) of the future (barring a materialist take-over of science, of course).

The authors begin by considering our local environment (earth itself and the solar system) and how it supports the role of life and our ability to discover facts about the universe. For example, the fact that the earth has a moon and that together the sun and moon give rise to "eclipses" as seen from earth has allowed scientists to further our knowledge about the fundamental laws of physics. For one thing, this has enabled us to learn more about the sun itself. But, even more amazingly eclipses have allowed for an experimental test of Einstein's theory of relativity (thus furthering our understanding of physical law). The authors next consider life itself as a "data recorder", allowing one to understand the earth through the presence of life. The authors note the important role that carbon plays in life. They consider the possibility of other radically different forms of life (perhaps an extrapolation based on the "extremophiles" found on earth) such as silicon-based life, but they find the case for such life problematic. (It cannot be ruled out a priori of course but there are some good reasons to think it may not exist.) The authors also note the importance of water in the maintaining of life. To support their understanding of life they quote extensively from the important works of biochemist Michael Denton who has done important research in this area. Following this, the authors consider the case of the earth itself, noting how various aspects of the earth (such as its climate and geological structure) allow for the possibility of life (i.e. habitability). The authors quote from the work of James Lovelock and mention the "Gaia hypothesis" (which they appear to admire but find problematic in certain ways). The authors also have an interesting take on the subject of "global warming" and climate change. They regard much of the global warming hysteria to be overblown and believe that in fact carbon dioxide emissions may enable civilization rather than ultimately destroy it. The authors also make an important distinction between simple, complex, and technological life and note the apparent uniqueness of earth in this respect. Following this the authors finally turn their attention to the heavens. They note the importance of meteorites for studying the composition of the solar system. They mention the idea of the "panspermia hypothesis"; however, they find this to be somewhat problematic. They also note the importance of earth's place in the solar system, as well as the apparent fact that contrary to original expectations in early times it is now believed that earth is the sole planet in the solar system with life (barring the possibility of some very simple forms of life on other planets). The authors next turn their attention to the "pale blue dot" idea, noting the importance of the moon for earth, but also considering the widely regarded claim that moons may provide a source of life. They also consider some of the other planets in the solar system. The authors next consider the importance of our neighboring planets for enabling discovery on earth. Following this the authors turn their attention to the broader universe. The authors consider the role of other stars, how the sun has certain unique aspects, our place in the galaxy and the fact that such a location is important for life, the role of the Milky Way galaxy (and how the galaxy itself has certain characteristics which are unique for life), and the broader universe. The authors consider our place in cosmic time (the importance of such for life) as well as the idea that our universe itself is "fine-tuned" for discovery (certain cosmological constants are just right to enable life to exist). The authors also consider the possibility that our universe itself is not unique but note the problematic for such a possibility. Finally, the authors turn their attention to some of the implications of all this. First, they provide a revisionist history of the Copernican discovery that the earth was not the center of the cosmos. This revisionist history shows how much of the myth surrounding the Copernican discovery is unwarranted and ultimately based on a false understanding of history. The authors then consider the extended Copernican principle itself (the idea that we are not special). They show that such a principle is ultimately rooted in dogma or merely assumed a priori and fails the test of empirical investigation. The authors then consider a possible way around these difficulties (the anthropic principle); however, they show why this is problematic in many respects. Following this, the authors consider what this has to say for SETI, and the apparent failure of SETI. They consider Fermi's paradox as offering a significant challenge to much of SETI. They also present several seemingly obscure arguments (such as the so-called "Doomsday Argument") against ETI; however, ultimately it should be noted that while these arguments may weaken the case for ETI they cannot ultimately eliminate the possibility (as the authors duly note). The authors also note the religious overtones of SETI, noting the fiction of Carl Sagan in this respect. Following this, the authors turn to the issue of design. They regard design as having been unduly dismissed by science prematurely. Individuals such as William Dembski have made the design argument viable again and it may indeed have a role to play in the science of the future. Interestingly, the authors note that many scientists themselves are so prejudiced against the notion that they have gone out of their way to avoid it. For example, Hawking has resorted to certain highly questionable assumptions to avoid it. On the other hand, individuals such as William Lane Craig have attempted to make the point for it. Finally, the authors consider the skeptical rejoinder to their arguments. In two appendices, the authors explain the revised Drake equation and reconsider the panspermia idea.

This book is an absolutely fascinating study of our place in the cosmos. Further, it shows how developments at the very forefront of science and cosmology have brought back the design argument and how such an argument may have a unique role to play in the science of the future (provided that it is not stifled by a dogmatic materialist opposition). For those grappling with the issues of man's role in the universe in light of modern science, this book is sure to be an important read.

I am a practicing physician. I majored in biology at Indiana University. I graduated from IU with a 3.7 gpa. I have never had a pollster ask me whether I believed in the theory of evolution or the Judeo-Christian account of the creation of the universe by an omnipotent and omniscient creator, God. The
"vast majority of scientists" who hold to the theory of evolution may not be as "vast" as evolutionists would like to believe.
"The Privileged Planet" presents overwhelming evidence for intelligent design. I feel sorry for people who lack the scientific knowledge to fully appreciate the special place that we inhabit in our ever-expanding cosmos. "The Priviledged Planet" is a remarkable attempt to fill that gap.

I first saw the video of this product elsewhere, and was so impressed I bought the book through Amazon as I knew it would contain more information than the video. As a youth I always thought mankind was pretty arrogant to think that in all the vast galaxies we were the only intelligent lifeform, and expected that little green men would turn up on earth one day. After reading the book I am not so sure of that anymore! Our planet is uniquely placed to support intelligent life in ways I never thought possible, and I just can't believe all this information has been available and no one has put it together so coherently before.

I looked at the posted reviews before writing my own. The vast majority (more than half) rate the book at five stars. Does this prove that this is the greatest book ever written? Of course not. It is simply a result of the adage that "you will like this book, if this is the kind of book that you like." The next largest category is a rating of one star. And what does that prove? It proves that "you will not like this book, if this is the kind of book that you do not like." Apparently this book is not as simple, or as obvious as either group would tell you. In fact, I found this book to be quite complex, if one read it (or should one say, "studied") the book carefully. I would say that one has here three, or possibly four or more, "books" combined in one.

First we have a book of "scientific information or facts." I found no criticism of these facts in the one star ratings. The facts are clear, complete, well reasearched and well referenced for those who wish to look further. Clearly this "book" deserves a five+ star rating.

Another book is based on the "choice of facts to present." Some people may be unhappy that facts they would include, are excluded. Is this a problem? Only if you disadgee with the clear intent/agenda of the authors. There is nothing hidden here. The authors make it clear where they stand respecting the origin, and purpose, of life. One can disagree that life has a creator or designer. But that is a different premise that the one chosen by the authors. Given their premise. I would argue that the authors chose just the right science to present and to exclude.

A third book involves "conclusions" derived from the presented facts. The idea that our planet is privileged to both our kind of life and also to scientific discovery, and the corolary that the requirements for both are intertwined, is intriguing. Nevertheless, I must say that I am not completely convinced respecting privilege in scientific discovery but the supporting material is 100% convincing respecting our kind of life.

A fourth book, if one will, involves various conclusions respecting what one might call orthodox intelligent design. Here is where prior biases and ideas will make a big difference, ranging from a perfect five to an insignificant one. I happen to believe in a "designer" but am not a full supporter of orthodox ID, especially with respect to evolution theory. So what? Does one have to agree with the ultimate conclusions of a book to find it interesting, intriguing and even fascinating? Indeed, the readers who gave the book a one star rating, primarily because they do not believe in a "designer," still found a wealth of ideas and facts to consider - if only to reject.

I would say that this is a must read whether you support or reject the ultimate conclusions because this book will make you think. And thinking is always a good thing.