Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mechanosensing, God, and physicist Michio Kaku


Yes, they all end up being related and here’s how: Yesterday evening, gpuccio published “Mechanosensing and Mechanotransduction: how cells touch their world here,” on the extracellular matrix (ECM) by which a cell communicates with its environment.

A reader wrote,

Great ……. The only explanation that is scientific and logic is that all of this awesome activities are directed and guided by God , no other explanation is possible since the information needed to construct biostructures are not contained in nature or the cosmic laws.

and gpuccio replied:

Welcome to the discussion and thank you for your comment.

I just want to clarify that my argument about ID as applied to biology is about the design inference. It clearly infers design interventions by come conscious, intelligent and purposeful agent. From a purely scientific point of view, no statement about God is needed, at least IMO. That remains a philosophical or religious problem.

I absolutely agree that “the information needed to construct biostructures are not contained in nature or the cosmic laws.” That’s exactly why a design inference is absolutely needed to provide a credible explanation.

No law and no contingency can explain complex functional information. Conscious, intelligent and purposeful design can. That’s why the design inference is absolutely warranted when complex functional information is observed.

And, when it is observed in the huge amounts implied by the systems described in the OP, I can’t really imagine how any sensible person can deny the inference of design.

But, of course, they can and they will.

If the only reasonable inference about life is design, does design entail the adoption of a cosmology that includes a specific doctrine of God? gpuccio is surely right to say that the evidence of design, as such, cannot do that. Doctrines of God rely on other bases as well.

The evidence from design rules out some doctrines (naturalist atheism, for example) but does not thereby establish alternatives (Judaism, Buddhism, for example). Adherents to any serious version of these faiths accept design as a given but point to other factors to establish their specific claims.

Michio Kaku at the Chalkboard
Michio Kaku

Which brings us to theoretical physicist Michio Kaku. Recently, a friend asked whether he believed in God, based on the following from June 8, 2016:

Kaku, the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York, has published more than 70 articles in physics journals on topics such as supersymmetry, superstring theory, supergravity, and hadronic physics.

His latest claim is likely to make waves in the world of science.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence,” Kaku said, as quoted by the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies. “To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” Jon Miltimore , Intellectual Takeout More.

Here’s Miltimore’s source:

Barbara Hollingsworth, “String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created” at CNS

Here’s Hollingsworth’s source:

According to the physical, observing the behavior of these tachyons in several experiments, concluded that humans lived in a kind of “Matrix”, ie, a world governed by laws and principles conceived by a kind of great smart architect . “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence, not unlike a favorite computer game, but of course, more complex and unthinkable,” said the scientist.”Scientist Michio Kaku surprised with finding irrefutable evidence: God does exist” at NOVA Evolution May 20, 2015

Dr. Kaku clarified his comments in 2018:

“Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable,” Kaku says. “That’s called ‘science.’ However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.” He’s noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such ‘non-falsifiable’ problem…

In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”

It’s that second “God” to which Kaku is drawn. He tells innovation tech today that the universe could have been random, but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant.” Robby Berman, “Michio Kaku believes in God, if not that God” at Big Think

He goes on to talk about the “exquisite simplicity” of the laws of physics as well.

So yes and no. Kaku believes in God as demonstrated by order and design as opposed to randomness and chaos. If that ever becomes a problem for him, science has even bigger difficulties than we have supposed.

What we can’t do is go from that to Buddha’s Fire Sermon or the Ten Commandments. These other sources assume the background of a universe that shows design but are answering different questions. Hope this clarifies matters.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Why AI won’t wipe out humanity? (Michiko Kaku)


Mechanosensing and Mechanotransduction: how cells touch their world

"However, there are certain things that are not testable." The God I serve says "Test me and see" Who should I believe? The truth is that certain things are not reproducible on demand, and nor should they be. For example, you might consider sexual relations between a man and a woman to be an expression of love, but when it is that means that by its very nature it is not reproducible on demand. A third party cannot "repeat the experiment" (the idea is abhorrent). Similarly, God can be tested, and many millions of Christians have done the experiment and reported the results, just as many people millions of people report that their spouse loves them even as they would be hard put to prove it in a court of law or in a laboratory. The original formulation might be a useful rule of thumb in the context of scientific enquiry. That does not make it true, nor True, nor a universal truth. ScuzzaMan
ID is not about the existence of God. Though some of us (like me) do believe in God, that’s a theological extrapolation (a natural theology inference) from the apparent design we see in nature. IDist’s arguments are based on the apparent design and teleology we see in nature. Here is my argument for ID: Mindlessness does not create mind. Purposelessness does not create purpose. The burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise. Materialism in its crudest and crassest form denies there is any plan or purpose to the “natural” world.” However, it is self-evidently true that the natural world in full of things which we know have purpose. We can demonstrate this easily by asking a series of very simple questions. For example: what is the purpose of the sun? Of light and heat… of gravity? What is the purpose of air? What is the purpose of water? What is the purpose of rocks and minerals… of plants and vegetation? Of photosynthesis? Don’t tell me that these things don’t have any purpose. We wouldn’t exist if these things didn’t exist. Of course, the list doesn’t end there. You can ask questions about yourself, your own existence. For example, what is the purpose of your heart? What’s the purpose of your blood? …of your veins and arteries? …of your lungs? …of your hands? …of your feet? …of your arms… your legs? …of your eyes? …your ears? (The list is unending.) The natural world is full of purpose. Not only is it obvious, we are hardwired to perceive and believe that it does have purpose. Only a cynical fool would believe otherwise. Here is a short very well done video that makes the same basic argument from a human evolution point of view that make the same basic argument that I’m making here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an98jVCyApo john_a_designer
From the OP: Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.” But a God who creates, who designs beauty, harmony and simplicity, who orders the universe mathematically, is a God of conscious purposes. And a God of conscious purposes is a personal Being. Dick
Hi Denyse, Thank you for the very interesting discussion. I think I agree with most of the thinks you say. I believe that science, philosophy and religion are different fields of human cognition (and experience!). But they certainly overlap in many important things. There is no doubt that Intelligent Design theory is a scientific theory, and as such it should be pursued without any philosophical or religious cantext that could condition the scientifc approach. But there is also no doubt that such a fundamental pardigm of knowledge as ID theory has deep consequences for the philosophical and religious thought. That's not really a novelty. It has been true for all big scientific paradigms, from astronomical models up to Big Bang theory and relativity and quantum mechanics. Science, philosophy and religion should cooperate. That cooperation is only possible if each of them retains its correct identity. With humility, in all those different approaches to reality. gpuccio

Leave a Reply