Death By Black Hole & Other Cosmic Quandaries

by Neil DeGrasse Tyson

  Turns out that some celestial bodies give off more light in the invisible bands of the spectrum than in the visible. And the invisible light picked up by the new telescopes showed that mayhem abounds in the cosmos: monstrous gamma-ray bursts, deadly pulsars, matter-crushing gravitational fields, matter-hungry black holes that flay their bloated stellar neighbors, newborn stars igniting within pockets of collapsing gas. And as our ordinary, optical telescopes got bigger and better, more mayhem emerged: galaxies that collide and cannibalize each other, explosions of supermassive stars, chaotic stellar and planetary orbits. And as noted earlier our own cosmic neighborhood—the inner solar system—turned out to be a shooting gallery, full of rogue asteroids and comets that collide with planets from time to time. Occasionally they’ve even wiped out stupendous masses of Earth’s flora and fauna. The evidence all points to the fact that we occupy not a well-mannered clockwork universe, but a destructive, violent, and hostile zoo.

  Of course, Earth can be bad for your health too. On land, grizzly bears want to maul you; in the oceans, sharks want to eat you. Snowdrifts can freeze you, deserts dehydrate you, earthquakes bury you, volcanoes incinerate you. Viruses can infect you, parasites suck your vital fluids, cancers take over your body, congenital diseases force an early death. And even if you have the good luck to be healthy, a swarm of locusts could devour your crops, a tsunami could wash away your family, or a hurricane could blow apart your town.

  SO THE UNIVERSE wants to kill us all. But, as we have before, let’s ignore that complication for the moment.

  Many, perhaps countless, questions hover at the front lines of science. In some cases, answers have eluded the best minds of our species for decades or even centuries. And in contemporary America, the notion that a higher intelligence is the single answer to all enigmas has been enjoying a resurgence. This present-day version of God of the gaps goes by a fresh name: “intelligent design.” The term suggests that some entity, endowed with a mental capacity far greater than the human mind can muster, created or enabled all the things in the physical world that we cannot explain through scientific methods.

  An interesting hypothesis.

  But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a superintelligence? Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence?

  Take the human form. We eat, drink, and breathe through the same hole in the head, and so, despite Henry J. Heimlich’s eponymous maneuver, choking is the fourth leading cause of “unintentional injury death” in the United States. How about drowning, the fifth leading cause? Water covers almost three-quarters of Earth’s surface, yet we are land creatures—submerge your head for just a few minutes and you die.

  Or take our collection of useless body parts. What good is the pinky toenail? How about the appendix, which stops functioning after childhood and thereafter serves only as the source of appendicitis? Useful parts, too, can be problematic. I happen to like my knees, but nobody ever accused them of being well protected from bumps and bangs. These days, people with problem knees can get them surgically replaced. As for our pain-prone spine, it may be a while before someone finds a way to swap that out.

  How about the silent killers? High blood pressure, colon cancer, and diabetes each cause tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. every year, but it’s possible not to know you’re afflicted until your coroner tells you so. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had built-in biogauges to warn us of such dangers well in advance? Even cheap cars, after all, have engine gauges.

  And what comedian configured the region between our legs—an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?

  The eye is often held up as a marvel of biological engineering. To the astrophysicist, though, it’s only a so-so detector. A better one would be much more sensitive to dark things in the sky and to all the invisible parts of the spectrum. How much more breathtaking sunsets would be if we could see ultraviolet and infrared. How useful it would be if, at a glance, we could see every source of microwaves in the environment, or know which radio station transmitters were active. How helpful it would be if we could spot police radar detectors at night.

  Think how easy it would be to navigate an unfamiliar city if we, like birds, could always tell which way was north because of the magnetite in our heads. Think how much better off we’d be if we had gills as well as lungs, how much more productive if we had six arms instead of two. And if we had eight, we could safely drive a car while simultaneously talking on a cell phone, changing the radio station, applying makeup, sipping a drink, and scratching our left ear.

  Stupid design could fuel a movement unto itself. It may not be nature’s default, but it’s ubiquitous. Yet people seem to enjoy thinking that our bodies, our minds, and even our universe represent pinnacles of form and reason. Maybe it’s a good antidepressant to think so. But it’s not science—not now, not in the past, not ever.

  ANOTHER PRACTICE THAT isn’t science is embracing ignorance. Yet it’s fundamental to the philosophy of intelligent design: I don’t know what this is. I don’t know how it works. It’s too complicated for me to figure out. It’s too complicated for any human being to figure out. So it must be the product of a higher intelligence.

  What do you do with that line of reasoning? Do you just cede the solving of problems to someone smarter than you, someone who’s not even human? Do you tell students to pursue only questions with easy answers?

  There may be a limit to what the human mind can figure out about our universe. But how presumptuous it would be for me to claim that if I can’t solve a problem, neither can any other person who has ever lived or who will ever be born. Suppose Galileo and Laplace had felt that way? Better yet, what if Newton had not? He might then have solved Laplace’s problem a century earlier, making it possible for Laplace to cross the next frontier of ignorance.

  Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem. Once upon a time, people identified the god Neptune as the source of storms at sea. Today we call these storms hurricanes. We know when and where they start. We know what drives them. We know what mitigates their destructive power. And anyone who has studied global warming can tell you what makes them worse. The only people who still call hurricanes “acts of God” are the people who write insurance forms.

  TO DENY OR ERASE the rich, colorful history of scientists and other thinkers who have invoked divinity in their work would be intellectually dishonest. Surely there’s an appropriate place for intelligent design to live in the academic landscape. How about the history of religion? How about philosophy or psychology? The one place it doesn’t belong is the science classroom.

  If you’re not swayed by academic arguments, consider the financial consequences. Allow intelligent design into science textbooks, lecture halls, and laboratories, and the cost to the frontier of scientific discovery—the frontier that drives the economies of the future—would be incalculable. I don’t want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don’t understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans will just sit in awe of what we don’t understand, while we watch the rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before.

  REFERENCES

  Modern publications of historic texts are listed when available.

  Aristotle. 1943. On Man in the Universe. New York: Walter J. Black.

  Aronson, A., and T. Ludlam, eds. 2005. Hunting the Quark Gluon Plasma: Results from the First 3 Years at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). Upton, NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory. Formal Report: BNL-73847.

  Atkinson, R. 1931. Atomic Synthe
sis and Stellar Energy. Astrophysical Journal 73: 250–95.

  Aveni, Anthony. 1989. Empires of Time. New York: Basic Books.

  Baldry, K., and K. Glazebrook. 2002. The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: Constraints on Cosmic Star-Formation History from the Cosmic Spectrum. Astrophysical Journal 569: 582.

  Barrow, John D. 1988. The World within the World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  [Biblical passages] The Holy Bible. 1611. King James Translation.

  Brewster, David. 1860. Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton, vol. 2. Edinburgh: Edmonston.

  [Bruno, Giordano] Dorothea Waley Singer. 1950. Giordano Bruno (containing On the Infinite Universe and Worlds [1584]). New York: Henry Schuman.

  Burbidge, E. M.; Geoffrey. R. Burbidge, William Fowler, and Fred Hoyle. 1957. The Synthesis of the Elements in Stars. Reviews of Modern Physics 29:15.

  Carlyle, Thomas. 2004. History of Frederick the Great [1858]. Kila, MT: Kessinger Publishing.

  [Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams] Brian Marsden, ed. 1998. Cambridge, MA: Center for Astrophysics, March 11, 1998.

  Chaucer, Geoffrey. 1964. Prologue. The Canterbury Tales [1387]. New York: Modern Library.

  Clarke, Arthur C. 1961. A Fall of Moondust. New York: Harcourt.

  Clerke, Agnes M. 1890. The System of the Stars. London: Longmans, Green, & Co.

  Comte, Auguste. 1842. Coups de la Philosophie Positive, vol. 2. Paris: Bailliere.

  ———. 1853. The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Compte, London: J. Chapman.

  Copernicus, Nicolaus. 1617. De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (Latin), 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Wilhelmus Iansonius.

  ———. 1999. On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Sphere (English). Norwalk, CT: Easton Press.

  Darwin, Charles. 1959. Letter to J. D. Hooker, February 8, 1874. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York: Basic Books.

  ———. 2004. The Origin of Species. Edison, NJ: Castle Books.

  DeMorgan, A. 1872. Budget of Paradoxes. London: Longmans Green & Co.

  de Vaucouleurs, Gerard. 1983. Personal communication.

  Doppler, Christian. 1843. On the Coloured Light of the Double Stars and Certain Other Stars of the Heavens. Paper delivered to the Royal Bohemian Society, May 25, 1842. Abhandlungen der Königlich Böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Prague, 2: 465.

  Eddington, Sir Arthur Stanley. 1920. Nature 106:14.

  ———. 1926. The Internal Constitution of the Stars. Oxford, UK: Oxford Press.

  Einstein, Albert. 1952. The Principle of Relativity [1923]. New York: Dover Publications.

  ———. 1954. Letter to David Bohm. February 10. Einstein Archive 8-041.

  [Einstein, Albert] James Gleick. 1999. Einstein, Time, December 31.

  [Einstein, Albert] Phillipp Frank. 2002. Einstein, His Life and Times [1947]. Trans. George Rosen. New York: Da Capo Press.

  Faraday, Michael. 1855. Experimental Researches in Electricity. London: Taylor.

  Ferguson, James. 1757. Astronomy Explained on Sir Isaac Newton’s Principles, 2nd ed. London: Globe.

  Feynman, Richard. 1968. What Is Science. The Physics Teacher 7, no. 6: 313–20.

  ———. 1994. The Character of Physical Law. New York: The Modern Library.

  Forbes, George. 1909. History of Astronomy. London: Watts & Co.

  Fraunhofer, Joseph von. 1898. Prismatic and Diffraction Spectra. Trans. J. S. Ames. New York: Harper & Brothers.

  [Frost, Robert] Edward Connery Lathem, ed. 1969. The Poetry of Robert Frost: The Collected Poems, Complete and Unabridged. New York: Henry Holt and Co.

  Galen. 1916. On the Natural Faculties [c. 180]. Trans. J. Brock. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  [Galileo, Galilei] Stillman Drake. 1957. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.

  Galileo, Galilei. 1744. Opera. Padova: Nella Stamperia.

  ———. 1954. Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. New York: Dover Publications.

  ———. 1989. Sidereus Nucius [1610]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  Gehrels, Tom, ed. 1994. Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

  Gillet, J. A., and W. J. Rolfe. 1882. The Heavens Above. New York: Potter Ainsworth & Co.

  Gregory, Richard. 1923. The Vault of Heaven. London: Methuen & Co.

  [Harrison, John] Dava Sobel. 2005. Longitude. New York: Walker & Co.

  Hassan, Z., and Lui, eds. 1984. Ideas and Realities: Selected Essays of Abdus Salaam. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.

  Heron of Alexandria. Pneumatica [c. 60].

  Hertz, Heinrich. 1900. Electric Waves. London: Macmillan and Co.

  Hubble Heritage Team. Hubble Heritage Images. http://heritage.stsci.edu.

  Hubble, Edwin P. 1936. Realm of the Nebulae. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  ———. 1954. The Nature of Science. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library.

  Huygens, Christiaan. 1659. Systema Saturnium (Latin). Hagae-Comitis: Adriani Vlacq.

  ———. 1698. [Cosmotheoros,] The Celestial Worlds Discover’d (English). London: Timothy Childe.

  Impey, Chris, and William K. Hartmann. 2000. The Universe Revealed. New York: Brooks Cole.

  Johnson, David. 1991. V-1, V-2: Hitler’s Vengeance on London. London: Scarborough House.

  Kant, Immanuel. 1969. Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens [1755]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

  Kapteyn, J. C. 1909. On the Absorption of Light in Space. Contrib. from the Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory, no. 42, Astrophysical Journal (offprint), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  Kelvin, Lord. 1901, Nineteenth Century Clouds over the Dynamical Theory of Heat and Light. In London Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 2, 6th Series, p. 1. Newcastle, UK: Literary and Philosophical Society.

  ———. 1904. Baltimore Lectures. Cambridge, UK: C. J. Clay and Sons.

  Kepler, Johannes. 1992. Astronomia Nova [1609]. Trans. W. H. Donahue. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  ———. 1997. The Harmonies of the World [1619]. Trans. Juliet Field. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

  Lang, K. R., and O. Gingerich, eds. 1979. A Source Book in Astronomy & Astrophysics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  Laplace, Pierre-Simon. 1995. Philosophical Essays on Probability [1814]. New York: Springer Verlag.

  Larson, Edward J., and Larry Witham. 1998. Leading Scientists Still Reject God. Nature 394: 313.

  Lewis, John L. 1997. Physics & Chemistry of the Solar System. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

  Loomis, Elias. 1860. An Introduction to Practical Astronomy. New York: Harper & Brothers.

  Lowell, Percival. 1895. Mars. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press.

  ———. 1906. Mars and Its Canals. New York: Macmillan and Co.

  ———. 1909. Mars as the Abode of Life. New York: Macmillan and Co.

  ———. 1909. The Evolution of Worlds. New York: Macmillan and Co.

  Lyapunov, A. M. 1892. The General Problem of the Stability of Motion. PhD thesis, University of Moscow.

  Mandelbrot, Benoit. 1977. Fractals: Form, Chance, and Dimension. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

  Maxwell, James Clerke. 1873. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  McKay, D. S., et al. 1996. Search for Past Life on Mars. Science 273, no. 5277.

  Michelson, Albert A. 1894. Speech delivered at the dedication of the Ryerson Physics Lab, University of Chicago.

  Michelson, Albert A., and Edward W. Morley. 1887. On the Relative Motion of Earth and the Luminiferous Aether. In London Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 24, 5th Series. Newcastle, UK: Literary and Philosophical Society.

  Morrison, David. 1992. The Spaceguard Survey: Protecting the Earth from Cosmic Impacts. Mercury 21, no. 3: 103.

  Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. 1976. Islamic Science: An Illustrated Study. Kent: World of Islam Festival Publishing
Co.

  Newcomb, Simon. 1888. Sidereal Messenger 7: 65.

  ———. 1903. The Reminiscences of an Astronomer. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

  [Newton, Isaac] David Brewster. 1855. Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton. London: T. Constable and Co.

  Newton, Isaac. 1706. Optice (Latin), 2nd ed. London: Sam Smith & Benjamin Walford.

  ———. 1726. Principia Mathematica (Latin), 3rd ed. London: William & John Innys.

  ———. 1728. Chronologies. London: Pater-noster Row.

  ———. 1730. Optiks, 4th ed. London: Westend of St. Pauls.

  ———. 1733. The Prophesies of Daniel. London: Pater-noster Row.

  ———. 1958. Papers and Letters on Natural Philosophy. Ed. Bernard Cohen. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  ———. 1962. Principia Vol. II: The System of the World [1687]. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  ———. 1992. Principia Mathematica (English) [1729]. Norwalk, CT: Easton Press.

  Norris, Christopher. 1991. Deconstruction: Theory & Practice. New York: Routledge.

  O’Neill, Gerard K. 1976. The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space. New York: William Morrow & Co.

  Planck, Max. 1931. The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics. London: Allen & Unwin Ltd.

  ———. 1950. A Scientific Autobiography (English). London: Williams & Norgate, Ltd.

  [Planck, Max] 1996. Quoted by Friedrich Katscher in The Endless Frontier. Scientific American, February, p. 10.

  Ptolemy, Claudius. 1551. Almagest [c. 150]. Basilieae, Basel.

  Salaam, Abdus. 1987. The Future of Science in Islamic Countries. Speech given at the Fifth Islamic Summit in Kuwait, http://www.alislam.org/library/salam-2.