Science laureate Robert Jastrow cannot say that at the root of evolution lies nothing but blind chance. So he is searching for other answers.

Many people would consider Robert Jastrow a modern Renaissance man. A physicist with a wide-ranging interest and expertise in astronomy, earth sciences, and paleontology, he has applied these disciplines to the study of what he calls the “cosmic mysteries”: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of man.

He has written three books that are billed as the scientist’s version of biblical Genesis: Red Giants and White Dwarfs (New Amer. Lib., 1971), the story of the evolution of the universe from the moment of creation; Until the Sun Dies (Norton, 1977), the evolutionary story of life on the earth up to man; and most recently, The Enchanted Loom (Simon & Schuster, 1981), the scientific story of the emergence of intelligent life on earth.

Jastrow is one of the most successful popularizers of modern science today. In addition to his evolution trilogy, he teaches geology and astronomy at Columbia University and is professor of earth science at Dartmouth College. He has been host of numerous space science programs on CBS, and is a regular columnist for Science Digest magazine. He is also founder and former director of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York.

Above all, Robert Jastrow impresses one as a man on a search. It is a search for clues, not just in the material world, but clues, wherever they may be found, to the origins of life and its meaning. He freely admits, however, that so far he has conducted this search solely in the realm of science. But Jastrow, perhaps more so than any of his atheistic or agnostic colleagues, has faced up to the limits of his scientific inquiries.

We wanted to explore these limits further with him. Our intention was not to debate Jastrow on the scientific evidence for or against evolution and creation science. It was rather to hear from an open-minded member of the evolutionary camp and explore ways that biblical faith must inform science and vice versa.

We started with a crisis in modern astronomy that Jastrow documented in his book God and the Astronomers. Here he describes an emotional and thoroughly unscientific reluctance experienced by many scientists in the early part of this century—including Einstein—to accept evidence for a moment of creation. The stumbling block for scientists was this: if the universe had a beginning in time (as the “big bang theory” proposes), and if, as happened, all material evidence of what was there before the beginning vanished in that first giant explosion, then the scientists’ efforts at tracing cause and effect back in time had come to an abrupt end. Science had no answer to the question of ultimate cause.

Article continues below

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” (God and the Astronomers). The interview with Dr. Jastrow began at this point.

What brought us to this traumatic point? How has the relationship between God and the astronomer changed since the days of Johannes Kepler [1576–1630], the founder of modern astronomy?

Kepler was a deeply religious man, I believe. But since his time scientists have tended to become less so because I think the advances in their knowledge have pushed the frontiers of a material universe farther and farther back into the world of what used to be considered the spiritual. And these gradual successes of the scientific method have given scientists an outlook of materialism [one that sees matter as the only reality in the world and its study, by science, as the only way to the truth about the universe]. So, many are atheist or agnostic because of this.

Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. You might say this would make them more inclined to accept religious views on the origin of the world. But their materialism is so deeply imbued in them—and I would count myself also as affected by this feeling—that the general response has been simply to avoid considering the implications.

For people who consider matter to represent the whole of reality, has science replaced Christianity or biblical faith as their religion?

Yes; I know you don’t mean they are blasphemous in any sense, but they have their own religion. Whether they are agnostics as I am at this time, or atheists, they have a kind of natural religion in science which gives them their answer to some of the cosmic questions. And the principal element in that religion, or “faith,” is a belief that everything that happens in the world has a scientific explanation, for every effect there is a cause. It is not a supernatural cause, but one physics can explain and understand. There is no proof of that. In fact, I think there are questions in science that are beyond our reach at this time. And that’s why I call this an article of faith among my colleagues.

Article continues below

Given this “natural religion” and the materialistic bent of most scientists today, what kind of warning should parents and students be given when they study evolution in school?

I think the fact of evolution is abundantly proven by the details of the fossil record. And I think that has to be communicated along with the statement that while many scientists view this story only in terms of its details, which have a kind of random flavor, any thoughtful person realizes that the important issue being joined here is whether the events we see played out in this history are the expression of a larger purpose. If it is there, such a person must agree that science has no comment to make because you cannot describe the purpose of an entire series of events by looking within the events themselves.

What portion of reality, then, can we look to science to define for us and what portion lies beyond scientific inquiry?

That’s a very perceptive and interesting question, because physicists and scientists like to think they have a unique handle on reality. And they’re very arrogant about that—even though they’re all really very nice fellows. But I don’t think they have a better grasp of reality than anyone else, and in some ways perhaps less so because there are different kinds of reality. Even within the province of physical reality, which my field deals with, it is very important for people outside science to realize that our definition of reality changes—almost from year to year. So what was reality in the nineteenth century is not real today. Relativity knocked everything into a cocked hat. What is reality today, and what the physicists are so proud of, may be nonsense in the next century. So I would say science, which is my special interest, is one avenue to the truth. But it’s clear to me it is not the only one.

Where does one go to find the purpose of life, the rest of the truth?

You must obtain these insights through your own views or those of people on whom you rely in the clergy or philosophy. But these are truths that are not accessible by scientific inquiry.

Article continues below

To what extent does science have an obligation to make clear today that it does not have anything to say about purpose or the existence of God?

[After considering the prevailing view of his colleagues that science does have some things to say about purpose (that there is none, and it’s a meaningless question, so “Go away, don’t bother me”), Jastrow responded as follows.]

It would clear the air [if the scientific community did make a statement concerning the limits of scientific inquiry], because a lot of the hostility toward science among some church members (which is witnessed in these school battles) comes out of a confusion on that score. The feeling is that scientists are saying not only that they have a theory of human evolution, but that they have the whole story and there is no room in that story for the existence of God. And then that spreads over into the question of whether godless atheism isn’t being taught in the schools.

It would make plain to people who are worried about science being atheistic, and about the impact of scientific teaching on schools and on values, that science has nothing to do with what they are really concerned about.

So it would clear the air if scientists took my position, which is that they have interesting details to tell and very useful things to contribute to our economic struggle against Japan, but nothing to say on these basic issues of man’s purpose and existence.

How do you view the current legal battle over equal time for creation science in the classroom?

I think any person who has spent time and effort reading and examining the detailed facts of the fossil record, as I have, acquires a sense of the overwhelming impact of this enormous number of fossils that demonstrates the continuity of the process by which man’s ancestry evolved out of simpler forms of life.

But unlike most of my scientist friends, I am very sympathetic to the objectives of the people who say we don’t want evolution taught, or taught alone. What they are after, as I see it, is to create a school environment in which their children are acquainted with the values that they feel should shape their lives, and they are very unhappy about many of the values in American society today.

I think, however, because of an innocent ignorance of this great detail of facts I have mentioned, they have focused their attention on the first pages of Genesis. It seems to me that’s an error. But their objective is to have the important message of the Scriptures communicated in the schools, and that’s another matter.

Article continues below

I also think this is not the issue on which the man of science and the man of religious faith can meet and have a dialogue.

What are the issues the man of faith and the man of science should come together on and discuss?

First, the most striking fact that science has discovered is that there was a beginning to the universe, because the inability to determine the cause of that beginning means there are limits to the powers of scientific inquiry. That’s a very open-ended situation, and it paves the way to a dialogue. If science does not have the last word, then the word of others is more acceptable.

Second, there is the question of evolution, and here I really think the person who has studied the details of the evidence cannot maintain other than the statements I have made. But that is a point of contact. If one wishes, one could debate it. But to me, it is no longer a major point.

Third, there is something I think is very troubling—I mean, it seems to me it should be troubling to the theologian and it is a point of discussion—and that is the plurality of worlds. There is the suggestion, though admittedly without any proof, that man is not unique and not even among the highest, most advanced denizens of the world, and that if a Supreme Being exists, there are many races who are worthy of his attention. This puts a different light on the most essential element, it seems to me, of the Jewish and Christian tradition, which is the feeling of a personal God, the relationship between man and his Creator.

Fourth is the question of purpose in the universe. Is there a larger plan, a design of some kind that is not manifest in the details—because the details have such a seemingly random character? In my view, that is the central issue to be joined.

What would be the purpose of this dialogue?

Well, I think you have a desirable effect on the man of science because, if he’s an honest person, it will become clear to him that he does not have the only grip on reality. There are other kinds of truth in the world that he has not yet grasped.

How would that benefit him and society in general?

Well, it would make him feel more humble, I think, in the exercise of technology. And the theologian must admit that certain tenets of his faith are now contradicted by observational evidence. So the effect of this dialogue on belief must be to make him reexamine which are the central elements of his belief and which can be modified without damage.

Article continues below

In order for this dialogue to begin, don’t the materialist assumptions of modern science—that is, that matter is the only reality and science the only avenue to the truth—have to be made clear?

I think the man of science must be willing to admit that he does not have the ultimate grip on reality—that what he calls reality or scientific truth is ephemeral. As the modern scientific view of the world is completely different from that of 300 years ago, so there are other views that will replace his. He must keep an open mind to those who may have some perception of the larger meaning and of truths that are not within the present body of scientific knowledge.

But scientists, and physicists especially, tend to feel that they know everything. The physicist is so successful in his narrow range of problems that he feels his techniques of thought can potentially tell him everything. It is the success of their approach to life that gives them this [closed-minded certainty].

Some scientists, Carl Sagan for one, strongly imply that it is science that gives man his dignity (“by the courage of his questions and the depth of his answers”). What role, if any, can science play in providing man with a sense of dignity?

I think science and religion stand together in that important matter. In my view, the essence of science is an inquiry into the nature of man: his physical origins, how he came on the earth, his present nature and his destiny. And, of course, there are such things as computers and televisions and airplanes that come out of science. But these are almost details in this larger sense in which we are having our conversation—of the meaning of the cosmos, I would say. And so science and religion pursue their inquiries into the nature of man along different paths. And they’re both illuminating. One’s personal philosophy dictates the balance between these two forces in one’s own religious and moral life.

But I think you can go beyond that point because the matter really is a question of purpose. If there is no purpose in the universe and man evolved out of the lower forms of life by a succession of random accidents, that really does rob him of his dignity, I think. But if, on the other hand, man has evolved out of lower forms of life by a series of events which are themselves a working out, or an expression, of a larger purpose of the universe, then I think science and religion stand together in their view of man and human dignity—only the details differ.

Article continues below

Is it correct that you say that you are an agnostic because science cannot tell you the purpose of life?

No. I am an agnostic because I know the answer to this cannot come out of science. It comes through revelation or through insights, which I have not had. I may have them some day. I may acquire them from someone else. I am always interested in dialogue with the man of faith for that reason. But this has not touched me at this time. It is not something I was born with. It is not something I have experienced yet. But it is clear to me that there are important possibilities there, and that’s why I try to preserve an open mind.

How would you evaluate the anthropic principle?

[Astronomers who have begun to discover that we seem to be living in a “perfect” universe—one ideally and uniquely suited for intelligent life—have put forward the “anthropic principle,” which comes from the Greek word anthropos, meaning man. Basically, this principle says the universe evolved as it did because intelligent life exists. It moved to its present character in order to provide congenial circumstances for human life. This is a complete reversal of normal scientific deductive reasoning that would say we are here because the universe evolved as it did. One theorist goes so far as to replace René Descartes’s famous dictum: “I think, therefore I am” with “I think, therefore the universe is as it is.”]

The anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It’s a very theistic result.

And it comes out of looking at all the factors that created the universe in its present form and of realizing that if you change things a little bit in one way or the other—a small fraction of a percent change in the strength of the different forces, for example—you create a world in which there is no time for life to evolve, or the stars do not live, or the universe blows apart so quickly that no stars can form. In a dozen different ways, you find that the smallest change in the conditions of the universe would have made it impossible for life and man to be here.

What is the meaning to put on that result? There is no meaning in science. It’s a very funny result. Maybe nature is trying to tell us something here, you see, whose meaning cannot be discerned scientifically.

Article continues below

You’ve shown how astronomers have come full circle in the twentieth century with the discovery of a beginning of the universe. They have returned to an admission that the universe had a moment of creation. With the anthropic principle, it seems that science is returning to the notion of man’s having a special place in nature.

I agree with you.

What accounts for this?

I don’t know. I think it is very interesting and worthy of comment, and I don’t know what to make of it because I’m somewhat limited by my training as a physicist. So I search in that body of ideas for a meaning to this result, and there isn’t any there. But the result is clearly very important.

How satisfied are you not being able to know?

Um, it’s tantalizing. Let us say I’m awaiting further insights or illumination.

What about the origin of moral judgments? Do our notions of what ought to be, and how we ought to behave, come from within us, or do they exist apart from us—a standard that has been given or revealed to us?

[After brief discussion, Dr. Jastrow made this comment.]

I would not claim any certainty here, to put it mildly, but my guess is—and this is an area in which I’m still groping, and from a scientist’s point of view it is an area of the greatest interest to me in which I’m still reading and thinking—I would guess that our moral imperatives, our judgments, come from within and are rooted in traits of behavior in generations long past that contributed to survival.

You could say that’s a destructive effect. There, if accepted, scientific reasoning seems to deny something that is important to religious thinking.

To explore this moral dilemma further, many of your colleagues, along with millions of other people today, are speaking out against the danger of the nuclear arms race. Is there anything in scientific reasoning that would tell us, tell scientists, that we ought not to destroy ourselves by nuclear weapons?

The answer is, No. But the scientist who considers himself a moral being assumes a responsibility—most scientists do—for not working on projects that are obviously destructive. And they even go beyond that to try to arouse other people, to alert them to the dangers of such possibilities.

What gives scientists this moral compunction, though?

Ah, well, although he doesn’t like to admit it too often, he is a member of the human race, and moral judgments are universal in human behavior. We all have them. The only question is whether they spring out of our evolutionary development, as I tend to think, or they exist independently of man’s own existence.

Article continues below

The trouble with the position that many liberals, educators, and church organizations are now taking [on nuclear disarmament] is that it does not recognize the existence of evil in this world. There are, in fact, other forces in this world, which from our point of view are evil—and some of them reside in the Soviet Union.

Where does this evil come from?

It’s an evil that is present to some degree in every, society. But in a totalitarian society it can take the reins of power.

But where does it come from?

Ah! I don’t know. That’s the question of ultimate cause in a different light. I don’t know. You know, but I don’t.

How can science and faith work together? How can one inform and enlighten the other?

I think the dialogue is necessary so that each kind of person can see that he may not have the whole story. I think it is important for a person to know that science has an explanation for human origins that is really quite convincing. I think it is important to know that scientific story so you can better understand what is really important to you in your faith.

The scientist should understand clearly how limited his information is, and its significance.

Why?

Because he cannot be a moral man if he thinks his inquiries supply information in the sphere that is actually not present.

He must either look within himself for his code of behavior or to the body of religious belief. But if he thinks he can find that information in his scientific work, then he is fooling himself, and he’s in trouble.

Can you summarize your view of the origins of the universe, life, and man? Do you feel these origins were purely self-contained, mechanistic, fortuitous happenings, or do you feel that there is a role for an intelligent Creator to play?

It seems to me that the central question is one of purpose. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact [by the discovery of the moment of creation, the “big bang”]. Whether they ever do come into the domain of scientific knowledge is another matter. I think they can’t.

But leaving that aside, the question of purpose is the key question, because when you master all of the knowledge in astronomy, the earth sciences, the solar system, life, and the history of life leading to man, as I’ve tried to do, you find that a chain of cause and effect stretches from the beginning of the universe up to man’s rising on the earth. And at every point in the story, everything that happens is the result, seemingly, of pure, blind, random chance: chance collisions between particles in the primordial cloud creating the elements of the universe; random collisions of molecules in the primordial soup of the earth, according to the scientists, creating the first living molecules at the threshold; random mutations or variations in the forms of life creating the raw ingredients for evolution—pure blind chance.

Article continues below

To quote a Nobel prize-winning chemist named Minod: “Now we see,” he says (and he makes an argument that God does not exist, and this is the essence of it), “that at the root of the tremendous edifice of evolution there lies nothing but pure blind chance.” In other words, there is no purpose.

But I would say that you cannot make that statement, and that’s why I remain an agnostic and not an atheist. It seems difficult to me to accept the idea, even though it comes out of my own knowledge, that one creates the universe and, as a matter of chance, molecules accumulate in the primordial soup on the earth, and the observer or imaginary observer watching this turns his back for a couple of billion years and then he turns around again and man is there—arisen out of these simple molecules. Maybe it’s the result of chance, but it seems a little hard to believe. And that’s where I have to leave it at this time.

Bill Durbin is a producer for the Christian Broadcasting Network’s “700 Club” in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.

Tags:
Issue: