Probability 1: Why There Must Be Intelligent Life in the UniverseBy Amir D. Aczel Harcourt Brace 230 pp.; $22
Amir Aczel’s Probability 1 argues that there must be intelligent life on other planets. Here is his argument: The probability of intelligent life arising on a habitable planet near a sun like ours cannot be all that small since here we are on planet Earth—evolved life forms with intelligence. Recent evidence indicates that planets and suns like ours are abundant throughout the universe. Provided there are sufficiently many opportunities for an event to occur, no matter how small the probability so long as it is positive, we can say with a probability arbitrarily close to 1 that the event will occur; that is, it is nearly certain. The probability of intelligent life arising on a planet like ours is not too small and the number of such planets gives all indications of being huge. QED.
Aczel’s argument thus balances the probability of an event against the probabilistic resources for bringing about that event. The probabilistic resources for an event are the number of opportunities for its occurrence. Consider a coin tossed ten times. The probability of tossing ten heads in a row is approximately one in a thousand. Now, if all you have are ten coin tosses, then it’s unlikely that you’ll witness ten heads in a row. But if you have a million coin tosses, it’s virtually certain (i.e., the probability is close to 1) that at some point you’ll toss ten heads in a row.
The problem with Aczel’s argument is that he never addresses the tension between the probability of an event and its probabilistic resources. He blithely assumes that intelligent life isn’t all that improbable and that the probabilistic re sources (i.e., hospitable planets for intelligent life) are sufficiently abundant to render intelligent life a virtual certainty. But “the probability of life occurring on a single planet that is already within its star’s habitable zone”—the probability so crucial to Aczel’s argument—is not a well-defined quantity. To be sure, Aczel arbitrarily assigns it a number—”one in a trillion.” Thus, by assuming a billion trillion habitable planets as probabilistic resources, Aczel renders life a virtual certainty (i.e., renders its probability effectively 1—the billion trillion probabilistic resources essentially wash out the one in a trillion improbability for intelligent life forming).
But what if the probability of intelligent life forming is not one in a trillion, but one in 10^40,000 (i.e., one followed by 40,000 zeros—a number incomparably bigger than a trillion)? This, for Fred Hoyle, is the probability of life forming in the entire universe throughout its entire duration. In that case, Aczel’s argument falls apart. Indeed, in that case, despite a billion trillion habitable planets, intelligent life will still be vastly improbable, with probability nowhere near 1.
The subtitle of Aczel’s book, “Why There Must Be Intelligent Life in the Universe,” is therefore misleading. (The dust jacket even refers to the book as offering “proof” that we are not alone: “Aczel shows how the history of space discovery and probability theory come together to prove that we are not alone in the universe.”) Aczel establishes nothing like that there must be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. At best he establishes the conditional claim that if the probability of intelligent life arising on a habitable planet like ours is not too small and if the number of such planets is very large, then the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe will be arbitrarily close to 1. This conditional claim is far less ambitious than his original one and is frankly not very interesting. Clearly, it makes for a much more exciting story to learn that we are not alone—that extraterrestrial intelligence is real—than to learn that the evidence is thoroughly inconclusive. Alas, the evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence is in fact inconclusive, and Aczel’s book does nothing to change that.
But if Aczel’s book is a failure as an argument for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, it is more successful as a sweep through the science of the twentieth century connected with life. The discovery of planets outside our solar system occurred as recently as 1995, and Aczel recounts the story with enthusiasm. His treatment of various probabilistic paradoxes is excellent for its accessibility to nonspecialists. Indeed, Probability 1 is one of the most accessible popular science books that I have read; it touches on a lot of interesting science and is worth reading simply on that account. For a book that fails thoroughly in its stated objective, it is not a bad book!
—William A. Dembski
The Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, & the Triumph of Anglo-Americaby Kevin Phillips BASIC 707 pp.; $32.50
In the last issue of Books & Culture (“Is Geography Destiny?” May/June), Don Yerxa deplored “professional history’s overspecialization and … loss of nerve” while applauding the “encouraging exceptions” to this rule. Add to that short list of sterling exceptions Kevin Phillips’s The Cousins’ Wars, a book with nerve to spare and a thesis sweeping and ambitious enough to send fastidious microhistorians into a tizzy.
The cousins are the United States and Great Britain. The wars—which Phillips frames in an unexpected way, as “a famous trio of English-speaking civil wars”—are the English Civil War, the American Revolution, and the American Civil War. The thesis is that all three wars need to be seen in the context of a “four-century Anglo-American trajectory that surpassed all but the most extravagant predictions.” So, Phillips says, events that have traditionally been regarded as the exclusive province of “British history” or “American history” are in fact best understood as parts of one big story. He makes his case both with a broad narrative and with data sufficiently precise to gladden the heart of any microhistorian able to overcome her initial queasiness.
Although he has written many books since The Emerging Republican Majority (1969) lifted him to pundit status, Phillips is probably best known for that work. Here, as in that book, he traces generational patterns of political loyalty and behavior in which “cultural, ethnic, religious, economic, sectional, and local” distinctives are reflected in a complex weave. The Cousins’ Wars is a feast of a book, not only for academics with a professional interest in the subject but for all readers with a yen for full-blooded history.
—JW
Three Views on Creation and EvolutionJ. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, general editors Zondervan 296 pp.; $17.99, paper
Zondervan continues its Counterpoints series with this uneven dialogue on Creation and evolution. Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds discuss the young Earth view, Robert Newman covers old Earth creationism, and Howard Van Till argues for “theistic evolution” (or what he calls the “fully gifted creation” viewpoint). John Jefferson Davis, Vern Poythress, and others join the dialogue by offering responses to each of the three main essays, and Richard Bube and Phillip Johnson provide closing thoughts.
Nelson and Reynolds’s essay in favor of young Earth creationism, the first of the three main essays, is the least helpful. Rather than discussing positive scientific and biblical evidence for recent creationism and a universal flood, they instead wage a rhetorical attack on theistic evolution and a vaguely defined “naturalism.” When they do turn their attention to scientific evidence for recent creation, they offer none and even admit that their view is presently “implausible on purely scientific grounds.”
Even more curiously, though, they do not proceed to detail biblical evidence for their view, which would presumably constitute the sole remaining reason to support recent creationism. On the contrary, they call for a “truce” between youth Earth and old Earth creationists on matters of biblical interpretation so that the two groups might join forces against “theistic naturalism” and “secular naturalism.” Any Christian would heartily agree with the authors’ opposition to the latter form of naturalism, but it is not at all clear that recent creationists offer a more scientifically appealing view of God’s activities vis-a-vis the created order than do proponents of “fully gifted creation” or “theistic naturalism.”
If God does indeed create through the Darwinian mechanism of descent with modification, as Van Till and others believe, and thus doesn’t need to make any creative interventions in the created order, then it must be the case that God’s “activity [in the creaturely realm] is invisible to human science.” How could it be otherwise when there is no intervening divine activity for science to see? But since Nelson and Reynolds do not discuss the evidence for Darwinian evolution, their theological arguments against “fully gifted creation” amount to special pleading.
If Nelson and Reynolds present the case for “creationism” as it is understood by Christians who profess to read Genesis “literally,” Newman’s argument for old Earth creationism seeks to combine fidelity to Scripture with the scientific evidence. Newman’s essay is lucidly written but not finally persuasive.
Van Till’s presentation of “fully gifted creation” is by far the best of the three main essays, and it deserves the full attention of the Christian community. Van Till begins his essay by making two important points about advocates of “fully gifted creation” that may come as a surprise to many Christians. One is that advocates of “fully gifted creation” are creationists. The second is that they also believe that the universe is the product of intelligent design.
Against metaphysical naturalism, Van Till affirms that God is the creator of all that exists, although he does not create through instances of “miraculous intervention” in the physical world (e.g., creating new species). Van Till also believes that the universe is designed. By this he means that the universe was “thoughtfully conceptualized” by God in such a way that it “is richly endowed with the capabilities to organize and transform itself into new forms in the course of time.” What Van Till rejects is the definition of intelligent design that requires God’s direct assembly of “a particular species or biotic subsystem” in addition to his thoughtful conceptualization.
According to Van Till, the central question in the debate over Scripture and science is this: “What is the best vocabulary to employ in our speech about God’s creative work?” Because all sides in the debate believe that God is the creator and designer of the universe, the limitations of the labels “creationist” and “evolutionist” become apparent. Perhaps above all else, Van Till pleads with the Christian community to rise above the sloppy thinking that has characterized much of the Creation-evolution debate within the church.
Finally, Van Till’s essay is also important because it reveals a hidden premise in the popular argument, articulated by Charles Hodge and others, that the “fully gifted creation” view is tantamount to deism or atheism. He shows that this argument requires the premise that God cannot act in or interact with an evolving universe in such a way as he is said to act in the Bible. However, as Van Till shows, his critics have made no positive scientific or theological argument in support of that premise.
One hopes that future discussions of Creation and evolution among Christians will take into account the helpful definitions and clarifications put forth by Van Till. Doing so will eliminate the needless communication problems that too often plague the debate.
While it is clear that, apart from genuine differences, misunderstandings persist among the various parties in the debate, a hopeful note is sounded in Phillip Johnson’s concluding remarks. With refreshing candor, Johnson acknowledges that all of the leading viewpoints—including his own—are at present inadequate to account for all the evidence. Such humility is both rare and welcome.
—Matt Donnelly
Matt Donnelly (comag@ChristianityToday.com) is the assistant editor of Computing Today magazine.
Copyright © 1999 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture Magazine. Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.
