Faces at the Skylight: The Intelligent Universe

By David Pendery
What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason,

how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how

express and admirable, in action how like an angel,

in apprehension how like a god…

Hamlet, Act II, Scene II.

There’s a divinity that shapes our ends,

Rough-hew them how we will.

Hamlet, Act V, Scene II.

To the dull mind all nature is leaden.

To the illumined mind the whole world

burns and sparkles with light.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

All fact-collectors, who have no aim beyond their facts, are one-

story men. Two-story men compare, reason, generalize, using the

labors of the fact collectors as well as their own. Three-story men

idealize, imagine, predict: their best illumination comes from

above, through the skylight.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

2
 Note

Some years ago I picked up Fred Hoyle’s The Intelligent Universe at the suggestion of a
friend. The book opens with such an arresting passage, that I will quote it at length here:

A generation or more ago a profound disservice was done to popular thought by the no-
tion that a horde of monkeys thumping away on typewriters could eventually arrive at
the plays of Shakespeare. This idea is wrong…for the whole Universe observed by as-
tronomers would not be remotely large enough to hold the horde of monkeys needed to
write even one scene from one Shakespeare play, or to hold their typewriters, and cer-
tainly not the wastepaper baskets needed for throwing out the volumes of rubbish
which the monkeys would type. The striking point is that the only practicable way for
the Universe to produce the plays of Shakespeare was through the existence of life pro-
ducing Shakespeare himself. Despite this, the entire structure of orthodox biology still
holds that life arose at random. Yet as biochemists discover more and more about the
awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that the chances of it originating by accident
are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by
chance.1

As you can see, we are in for a ride with Mr. Hoyle. The Intelligent Universe is brazenly
iconoclastic (he devotes much of his energy to attacking Darwinism and the presumed mecha-
nisms of natural selection), but rich in ideas and elaborate thinking. As well, Hoyle, a noted as-
tronomer and physicist, supports his thinking with scientific examples.
The Intelligent Universe is an excellent book, engagingly written and illustrated, full of chal-
lenging assertions. And in the end, even if one cannot be shaken from one’s orthodox scientific
beliefs, one can at least credit Hoyle’s optimistic and respectful treatment of humanity’s greatest
asset: our intelligence. His aim, in a sense, is to give us back our intelligence and free will; to as-
sign to them greater importance than the mere deterministic survival mechanisms that orthodox
biology would have us believe.

David Pendery

1 Fred Hoyle The Intelligent Universe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983.

3
 Faces at the Skylight: The Intelligent Universe

By David Pendery

As we humans make our way in our lives, encountering love and hate, reward and injustice,

order and chaos, virtue and immorality, belief and pessimism, hope and despair, courage and

cowardice—then most of us at one time or another ask ourselves whether there is any purpose,

larger design or object to our existence. Many experiences can elicit such musings. Deep pain or

what seems to be pointless or inexplicable loss can force upon us ethical and philosophical ques-

tions that seem to demand explanation (or at least serious reflection and thought). Good fortune,

or the common experience of “karma” (good or bad) also engender thoughts about life’s meaning.

In fact, we can be so attuned to life’s possible meaning, that in the morning we may find our-

selves reveling in the beautiful “code” that often seems to dictate human behavior, and, in the

form of ethics, morality, religion, cooperation, compassion or kindness can be inspiring in its util-

ity, generosity, depth and grandeur. But that very evening, after watching the television news, we

may be enveloped in despair, and cry “What code?” when we see the degradations that humans

can sink to.

To go through life without asking the really searching questions would constitute a barren

inner existence indeed. And the very fact that humans can enjoy and explore such a rich inner life

seems to point to the possibility of a larger purpose to our species.

Biologists tell us—and back up the claim with impressive evidence—that there is no true pur-

pose. The purpose is continuity of the species, they say, and there is no other purpose than that.

4
that. The human code is itself a survival mechanism, a useful tool that allows humans to cooper-

ate when such behavior is expeditious, and is thus favored by natural selection.

This conflict between the biologists and those who see or want to see a grander order and

purpose to humanity’s existence is, of course, the stuff of legend. Although the biologists have in

many respects won this war, there remain, for many thoughtful observers, unanswered questions:

Can we account for the intricate complexity of life within a purely terrestrial, anthropocentric

view of its origins? In addition to natural selection, does the fossil record suggest other important

mechanisms of evolution? Why are the chaos and entropy predicted by physics (whether Newto-

nian or quantum) actually reversed in the arena of life’s growing evolving complexity and perfec-

tion? And are the many different variations—particularly the really influential variations—

available to natural selection adequately explained? As well, there are spectacular human attrib-

utes that seem to have no particular use in the doctrine of “survival of the fittest.”

In keeping with the tradition of skeptics and philosophers who have challenged the orthodox,

and have often provided the counter-currents of thought that invoke criticism, curiosity and de-

bate, I, with Fred Hoyle as my guide, will explore some of these questions and whether or not

there could be a larger intelligence at work in the universe, prodding and prompting, coaxing and

controlling evolution and human development.

Biology tells us that all life on Earth has evolved from a common ancestor, and that that an-

cestor itself originally emerged as a complex of amino acids and/or other organic compounds

from a “primordial soup” some billions of years ago. Amino acids—fairly simple organic com-

pounds—have been produced in the laboratory in conditions that are believed to be similar to

those on Earth in its earliest history. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted the most famous

of these experiments in the early 1950s. After applying electric charges to a laboratory atmos-

phere of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and other gases, they indeed discovered that amino acids

and nitrogenous bases had been created. This is good evidence of the spontaneous creation of the

basic components of life on earth, but evidence of these basic building blocks combining into

ever more complex and numerous series of proteins and then life forms stretches the bounds of

5
plausibility. Hoyle notes that the probability of the random assembly of amino acids (for biology

does insist on such random, undirected assembly) into the some 2,000 enzymes that are found in

different organisms (to say nothing of the thousands of other proteins that life forms utilize) is

approximately equal to rolling 50,000 consecutive sixes with two dice. Although such statistics

are open to interpretation, Hoyle does use other such examples to make several interesting points

about the formation of life on Earth. For example, to solve the Rubik cube (remember the Rubik

cube?) entirely at random, as a blindfolded player would try to do, could take, at one move per

second, about 1,350,000,000,000 years—about 300 times the age of the Earth! Surely we can

equate the formation of a complex protein to the correct sequence of moves to solve the Rubik

cube. And so, when we consider the thousands and thousands of proteins that are required for life

to continue and evolve, then the random assembly of amino acids into complex proteins with in-

tricate functions seems an inadequate and almost unimaginably unlikely mechanism to achieve

this end. In short, “unintelligent selection is only too likely to produce an unintelligent result”

(Hoyle, 244).In contrast, intelligence-driven selection could, to use the above example, solve the

Rubik cube in a matter of hours. What is the source of science’s reliance on processes that we can

logically see, and intuitively feel, are highly improbable?

The source is Darwinism itself. Darwinism has led us to believe that “the development of life

[is] an inevitable product of the purely local natural processes” (Hoyle, 23). Thus, given enough

time (and, ultimately, variation) anything is possible, including (or, especially) the emergence of

hundreds of thousands of distinct species of plants and animals with a stupendous range of inter-

action, abilities and functions.

Genetic variation and its cousin, mutation, are two of Darwinism’s pillars. These are the

sources of the variation that natural selection works upon. This is true enough, but to look at these

mechanisms in purely orthodox terms overlooks key questions and doubts about their utility in

evolution. Recombination of DNA in the gametes, and the subsequent pairing off of the chromo-

somes, is most assuredly the largest source of variation in humans. Yet most of this (un-mutated)

variation is of a fairly unimpressive scope. The “sieve” that is natural selection is likely to pass by

6
the subtle differences between this person with slightly higher cheekbones, and that one who has

bushy eyebrows; this person who has an IQ of 115, and that one whose is 121; this person who is

6’ 4” or that one who is 5’ 9”; or this person who can run 100 yards a second or two faster than

his neighbor. Yes, differences such as these account for some variation and reproductive success,

but the tendency is toward a general similarity rather than any attractive, highly useful, or radical

changes. The more active and important variation mechanism, as biology readily admits, is muta-

tion. But this too seems to be misunderstood.

“Mutation is the basic creative force in evolution,” write Jurmain and Nelson (96), yet I have

serious difficulties accepting this assertion. Two important points about the utility of mutation to

natural selection arise: 1) Mutation’s ability to provide natural selection with a large number of

variations to work upon, and 2) The “quality” of the variations provided.

Mutation is rare. “Mutation rates for any given trait are quite low,” write Jurmain and Nelson

(93). Consider the creation and replication of the genetic code in somatic and sex cells—is it not

much more accurate to be impressed by its incredible reliability rather than its proneness to error?

I believe this is true.

As well, mutation as humans usually observe it (in humans or animals) has rarely been con-

sidered a beneficent force. In fact it is more likely to be lethal. Even a rare instance such as sickle

cell anemia’s unique status as a malaria fighter does not diminish its inherently dangerous and

even lethal character. Most errors in the genetic code are deleterious to a frightening degree, and

only humanity’s social codes—our commitment to protecting those born disfigured, diseased, or

mentally incapable—counteracts what natural selection would otherwise act ruthlessly upon.

Humanity’s actions in protecting these weaker members of society countermands the tenets of

natural selection—such compassionate behavior should have always diminished our chances for

success in the natural world, particularly in our more primitive stages in harsher environments.

Yet there is no evidence that our concern for our fellows emerged from whole cloth only after we

had begun to master our environment. Rather, it appears to be natural to humans (though certainly

7
subject to lapses), and is an example of a human characteristic that seems to defy the gradual,

one-way path of evolution. I shall return to other such examples.

I have so far examined some of the basic complaints that some scientists (like Hoyle and

none other than Francis Crick) have made about Darwinism and natural selection as the sole

mechanisms for the emergence and development of life. Yet clearly natural selection exists, and

any alternative hypothesis about evolution must rely on its fundamentals. As I have noted, the

random nature of evolution, variation and the origin of life has been the chief doubt clouding the

leap of faith necessary to explain its spectacular development. What different factor has been of-

fered as a an explanation for the rise of the intricate, abundant, amazingly interactive array of life

of Earth?

Panspermia is the most comprehensive theory. Originated by the Swedish chemist/physicist

Svante Arrhenius (Nobel Prize in chemistry, 1903), the theory postulates that microorganisms

from throughout the Universe have “seeded” Earth, initiating the key chemical reactions that led

to the emergence of life. While no doubt largely speculative, evidence has been gathered that can

support panspermia. Organisms have occasionally been gathered from high in the Earth’s atmos-

phere, and, more importantly, there is intriguing evidence that fossilized microorganisms and vi-

ruses have been found in meteorites, indicating life outside Earth, as well as a vehicle for its

dispersion in the universe. Scientists have certainly questioned whether such microorganisms and

viruses could survive a long journey through the low-pressure, high-radiation environment of

space. Interestingly, though, bacteria and viruses have been identified in incredibly hostile envi-

ronments right here on Earth. Why, for example, have bacteria been found within the core of nu-

clear reactors, such as pseudomonas, located in 1960? This organism, as well as micrococcus

radiophilus, which can also withstand enormous doses of radiation, exist in environments that

have never even been present on Earth. Why would they have emerged at all, and what role could

natural selection have played in their development? The characteristics of these organisms and

others that can survive extremely high and low temperatures suggest that some life is equipped

for space travel (they would still need some protective “skin” of, perhaps, carbon).

8
 “Seeds” from space, wafting down onto Earth (they don’t truly waft down, of course, and

though many would be obliterated in the descent, it is not outside the realm of possibility that

some would survive) provide some interesting perspectives on Earthbound evolution. The theory

of punctuated equilibrium—the idea that the primary advances in evolution have occurred in

great leaps (in addition to the gradual process suggested by Darwin)—could be explained by sud-

den appearances of new viral genetic material from space in Earth’s gene pool. Viruses, we know,

have the amazing ability to commandeer a host’s DNA, and splice in new genetic material. This

new genetic material (given that the virus was not lethal) would either be stored in organisms for

eventual use and selection, or immediately put to use by a whole population, resulting in evolu-

tionary jumps—punctuated equilibrium.

Another aspect of evolution explained by panspermia is the incidence of mimicry in nature.

Darwinism explains the fact that some insects mimic their surroundings (walking sticks, crab spi-

ders, “eyed” moths etc.) as the result of chance miscopyings of the organism’s genetic code,

which resulted in an advantage favored by natural selection, resulting in more successful repro-

duction of the organism. Possibly the genetic error or change was rather minor (such as the subtle

emergence of a tiger’s stripes from an unstriped ancestor), but this change was gradually en-

hanced as speciation occurred over thousands and millions of years.

Problems crop up with this explanation. The gradual emergence of some favorable character-

istic seems implausible, for their initial emergence would more likely be a hindrance to the organ-

ism’s survival. The early development of a false eye on a moth, or the yellow coloration of the

crab spider would likely only have attracted the attention of predators. Another example used by

Hoyle is the spider’s web. The first incarnation of this unique trapping tool could not have been

more than a few useless strands of silk, catching no prey. How could the spider have been favora-

bly granted thousands or millions of years of experimentation which must have been required to

develop its complex web? The installation of new genetic material from space explains these

problems. The spider’s web may be the result of genetic alteration influenced by interstellar or-

ganisms or viruses. As for the crab spider’s exact mimicry of nearby vegetation, it is possible that

9
the two organisms were influenced by the same genes (“seeds”). The genetic material descended

from the sky, reprogrammed both organisms’ genetic structures, and resulted in a segment of their

DNA codes (in this case, color) being identical.

The tiger’s stripes, other coloration and mimicry, or the spider’s web can all be viewed this

way as much more abrupt occurrences than generally thought, conferring on the organism almost

immediately (in evolutionary terms) a desirable advantage.

Let us now jump to the present and recent past to examine a fundamental and encompassing

theory of physics, and its ramifications concerning our topic.

Quantum physics and mechanics, possibly even more than Darwinism, is considered a hard

and fast fact of life by almost all scientists. Quantum physics has proven to be uncannily reliable

in its predictions and explanations of the universe and life. I do not have the expertise to delve

deeply into this subject, but a few examples will illustrate how some tenets of quantum physics

are defied by the development of life and its complexity.

At the subatomic quantum level, we have no way of knowing or predicting an experimental

result, as all results are equally possible until and only until the experimenter has observed the

result at a given moment in time. As simple an idea as that of setting an electron bouncing from

one point to another inside a box and then predicting its position at a certain time (easily done in

Newtonian physics) is made useless in the quantum world. All positions of the electron are

equally possible, and, in a sense, the electron does not actually occupy any position until it is ob-

served. Quantum physics destroys the notion of a truly causal or deterministic universe. Rather

than a predictable cause-and-effect relationships, quantum physics “should produce a universe

which becomes more and more indefinite” (Hoyle 200). Classical physics, too, predicts that sys-

tems will ultimately decay.

Yet this is exactly the opposite of what we witness. Instead, evolution produces more and

more complex structures and organisms that are more and more capable of functioning in their

environments. Mankind is particularly subject to this improvement. In fact, more so. Humans

possess amazing—I daresay awesome—abilities that seem to thumb their nose at evolution. The

10
thoughts and works of history’s great geniuses (there is no need to furnish a list here; the reader

knows of what I speak) seem to have occurred extra-evolutionarily (a mouthful, I realize). There

are many examples, both individually and socially, of talents and interests that seem to be unique

to humans, outside of the insensible influence of evolution. For example, what particular survival

interest motivated prehistoric humans to create beautiful skilled artwork on the walls of their

caves? And what is it in human genetics that allows great geniuses to emerge, propagating ideas

that are often over the heads of almost the entire human race (as highly complex mathematics)?

How has evolution shaped such ability? Rather, such genius is more like punctuated equilibrium,

an unleashing of human potential.

Curiously, though, evolution and natural selection seem to have had virtually no effect for

eons on many other species—particularly insects and microorganisms. This is another open ques-

tion of Darwinism.

I am not trying to gainsay the canon of modern science. Quantum physics, natural selection,

evolution—all exist. Rather, I feel there may be more at work in their processes. There may be a

powerful factor at large in the universe that influences evolution, and even countermands the in-

tuitive and observed effects of quantum and classical physics. What could that factor be?

Why mince words? The factor is intelligence itself. Hoyle develops a lengthy, fascinating,

somewhat abstract theory of how intelligence is propagated in the universe, what forms it might

take, and how it could affect humanity’s future. Much of his work is conjectural, and I venture to

guess that he has been shouted down by many an established scientist. His ideas of microorgan-

isms inhabiting the universe and being the principle catalysts in life’s development, and that these

microorganisms are intelligently guided, are at times far-fetched but nonetheless refreshing. In

fact, I find the central idea that intelligence exists throughout the universe—almost all of such

intelligence existing in microbial or simple chemical form, and being, rather, potential intelli-

gence—a fascinating outlook.

11
 If one were to ask a cross-section of people what they thought was humanity’s most unique

and important characteristic, many would no doubt say, “Intelligence.” That capacity—useful as a

survival mechanism rewarding for its own sake, often eerily advanced and ranging in its finest

embodiments—separates humanity from all other species. Our intelligence is so advanced (with

notable exceptions) that we have come to realize that that very intelligence (or consciousness) is

an integral part of the physical world, in that it intertwines with and influences outcomes (as in

the quantum physics we examined above). Our intelligence and consciousness seem to have a

woven relationship to the microworld in this way—why not connect it to the universe at large? I

want to believe—call me an idealist—that intelligence is not strictly terrestrial; not simply earth-

bound. It may indeed be present in the universe, in microbial (it all starts from that level, and I

believe that in the smallest piece can be found the entire story), or, more abstractly, ideational

form. Physics tells us that when we view a quantum event we “insert” ourselves into that event,

becoming a key part of the reality. I see no difference between this inward-looking perspective,

and when we look outward, viewing and photographing and interpreting stars, planets, cosmic gas

clouds, black holes, galaxies and all manner of light in the universe. As we do this, we are insert-

ing our consciousness and intelligence into the universe beyond, becoming a part of those reali-

ties. In this way, as perhaps we have always suspected, intelligence is more than merely an

earthbound development. We have emerged from and live in a universe fairly glittering with in-

telligence and potential.

12