Gingerich, professor of astronomy and professor of the history of science at Harvard University, and also an Anabaptist Christian, delivers an effective rebuke to the idea that science and religion are incompatible. This book may not provide any ideas not more fully developed elsewhere, but Gingerich's is an intelligent and reasoned voice, and his unique background combining an anabaptist (Amish) upbringing and value system with his scientific achievement in the academy makes him an interesting figure.

Gingerich holds the belief that the universe has been created and guided by an intelligence, God, and has a purpose. One source of support for this position comes from the amazing "fine tuning" of many cosmic conditions, any of which if different would have made impossible the development of life in the universe (see physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies' book "The Cosmic Jackpot).

An example: the balance between the outward expansion of energy and the inward pull of gravitational forces just after the Big Bang had to be accurate to within one part in 10 to the 59th power. A slight bit too much expansion would have left matter too widely dispersed to form galaxies, planets, intelligent beings, etc., and a slight bit too much gravitational pull would have collapsed the universe back on itself before these things could have developed. Were we just incredibly lucky that the balance happened to be just perfect to such an incredible degree for the eventual emergence of life? Or does this suggest some intelligence and purpose at work?

But although it makes more sense to Gingerich to view the universe as having a creative intelligence with purpose behind it, and he argues that the atheistic belief in a purposeless universe is a philosophical idea and not a scientific one, he is not trying to convert his atheistic colleagues in the scientific community. Rather he is arguing that both he, a believer in God, and his atheist colleagues will produce the same science regardless of their metaphysical positions on God and the cosmos. ( )

Owen Gingerich is author of The Book Nobody Read, and an article about Kepler in Physics Today that I have recommended in the past. As both an astronomer and a historian, he has an informed perspective on some of the great questions of philosophy, including whether it is possible or even necessary to identify God's hand in our universe. Reading this small and short book is like having a conversation (or an argument, depending on your position) with an erudite and informed natural philosopher. With the ascendency and growing acceptance of the atheist viewpoints expounded by authors like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, I think it only fair to include similarly eloquent scientist-believers like E. O. Wilson and Owen Gingerich. I think that some of the arguments that Gingerich presents have already been refuted, especially those based on "irreducible complexity". For example, the contention the little rotating tails (flagella) of mobile bacteria must have evolved as a whole mechanism has been shown not to be true. However, the most powerful and interesting of his discussion are the parts related to cosmology and nucleosynthesis. The latter (where do the elements come from?) ought to be included in our introductory chemistry courses. Do you know why there are not nuclides of mass five, or why that is significant for the evolution of life? ( )

This is quite a book. Gingerich stands and thinks at the cutting point between religious methodology and Christian metaphysics. These three essays were given as lectures at Harvard as part of the William Belden Nobles series. Gingerich is a distinguished astrophysicist who is also a faithful Mennonite. He has thought deeply on what this means to his scientific occupation. He is deeply affected by the thought of Nicolaus Copernicus, who showed that the earth is "mediocre", a radical idea in the sixteeenth century. This is the idea that earth happened according to cosmological changes, and was not the special province of God's creation. This does not mean that God does not have any causation. Gingerich is an advocate to some degree of "intelligent design", but not "Intelligent Design." (with capital letters). Some advocates of ID argue pretty well for final causes, but not for efficient causes . That is, ID does not make a contribution as to the why of creation. Gingerich also discusses the significance of Johannes Kepler in his understanding of the cosmos. ( )

In God's Universe, Harvard Professor of Astronomy and the History of Science Emeritus Owen Gingerich spells out his views on the creation of the universe, arguing that "the universe has been created with intention and purpose, and that this belief does not interfere with the scientific enterprise." He believes that the universe can be seen as a more "coherent and congenial place if I assume that it embodies purpose and intention." In this modern-day natural theology (see William Paley's works for its earlier analogues), Gingerich says he has found a "subtle place for design in the world of science" (a force which brought about the big bang, for example, or caused the formation of DNA).

Gingerich is careful to distance himself from many sides in this debate. He laments the "primitive scriptural literalism that leads erroneously to a conclusion that the earth is only a few thousand years old", while at the same time chiding those who say they favor "Intelligent Design" for pitting their views as an alternative to Darwinism. "As a philosophical idea," he writes, "ID is interesting, but it does not replace the scientific explanations that evolution offers" (p. 74). However, he has just as much gentle remonstration for the hardline evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, who "use their stature as scientific spokesmen as a bully pulpit for atheism. ... I suppose he single-handedly makes more converts to Intelligent Design than any of the leading [ID] theorists." He also has differences with E.O. Wilson over the question of purpose and randomness.

What is special about this book is its reasonableness. Gingerich does not argue that those who disagree with his view of the creation are wrong, simply that they see things differently. His fundamental point is well worth quoting here: "Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that there has occasionally been creative input into the long chain of being." As Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Darwin, Gingerich is a scientist who happens to believe in an active God - and that didn't stop any of them from being good scientists. (Likewise, I don't think the opposite belief hampers scientific investigation either; like Gingerich, it's extremism and closed-mindedness I have difficulty with).

Whether or not you agree with Gingerich's thesis, these short essays are both provocative and interesting. We need more calm, steady voices like his in the debate over the role of religion in science (and vice versa).

http://philobiblos.blogspot.com/2006/12/book-review-gods-universe.html ( )