"Now if you talk about evidence of design in physics or cosmology, you are put under the category of intelligent design, and you are immediately labeled a fundamentalist or worse."

- Guillermo Gonzalez

Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez has made the news a few times recently, but not primarily for his accomplishments in the study of stars orbited by planets (exoplanets).

And not for his popular book and DVD, Privileged Planet, with philosopher Jay Richards, in which he says  that Earth is remarkably well suited to exploration of the solar system and the galaxy. Our position between spiral arms of the galaxy* enables us to see into the Milky Way in such a way that excess starlight does not occlude our view. 

Or even for his emphasis on the relationship between the size of the moon and the sun: The moon exactly covers the sun during a total solar eclipse, enabling astronomers like himself to garner priceless data.

Gonzalez has called his view - that Earth's position in the universe was designed in such a way that we can explore it - a "privileged planet" hypothesis - hence the name of the book.

These are not new ideas in themselves. Similar ideas have been explored in Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee's Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe.

However, the showing of the Privileged Planet film at the Smithsonian amid much controversy in June 2005 probably drew unfavourable attention to Gonzalez, as did the popular book and DVD themselves. The Smithsonian was the late Carl Sagan's territory, and it must be said that Privileged Planet explicitly denies the doctrine of St. Carl and all his faithful followers, that Earth is merely a pale blue dot lost in the cosmos.

Not even close, says Gonzalez; we could not be better placed if we had hired consultants. Possibly worse.

No, Gonzalez is best known for being denied tenure in May 2007 at ISU on account of his sympathies with intelligent design. The recent disclosure of the e-mail trail made clear that his sympathies with intelligent design were the reason for the denial, though some claim that he had also failed unwritten rules.

Actually, he had been a target for some time before he was officially denied. I interviewed Gonzalez recently by phone from his home in Iowa:

O'Leary: Dr. Gonzalez, you are described as a supporter of intelligent design. In your case that seems to mean intelligent design of the universe in general, not of life forms in particular. Is that right?

Gonzalez: That's right - intelligent design specifically with regard to my specialty - but that also means that I support ID research by others, but I don't participate in it.

O'Leary: Is your "privileged planet" hypothesis in some sense a subset of the fine tuning hypothesis - that the universe seems as if it were designed for life to come into existence?

Gonzalez: I would say it’s related. It includes the fine tuning of the universe for life, but also for discovery. Fine tuning in physics points to a purpose - the presence of life in the universe. But, further than that, it points to a purpose of life - to do science, to do discovery.

O'Leary: Why would scientists be opposed to that?

Gonzalez: In our book we say that the discovery that the universe is designed for discovery shows that science was built into the universe from the beginning. I’ve been surprised by the strong opposition. The answer is frankly political. I have got caught up in this debate over ID including all kinds of things I have nothing to do with, like whether ID should be taught in public schools. The reasons many scientists give [for opposition] have nothing do to with our thesis. The problem comes from where the debate has devolved over the years - it has become very nasty - for many years, biological evolution was separate from the debate over cosmic design.

O'Leary: Has the debate over fine tuning changed?

Gonzalez: Now if you talk about evidence of design in physics or cosmology, you are put under the category of intelligent design, and you are immediately labeled a fundamentalist or worse.

O'Leary: When I first covered the story about the showing of the Privileged Planet DVD at the Smithsonian, the New York Times reporter stated that the film was “anti-evolution” (he had not seen the film, which explains cosmological evolution and does not address biological evolution). Did the perception that you might be anti-evolution in some ideological sense contribute to a climate of distrust about you?

Gonzalez: Yes, there was no question that there was a tactic to brand me as anti-evolution. The petition against me was first circulated in email at my university's biology department. It had nothing to do with my privileged planet thesis. No one in physics or astronomy signed but there were over 100 signatories in philosophy, biology, earth sciences, and atmospheric science.

O'Leary: Ann Applebaum of the Washington Post claimed that Privileged Planet was a “religious” film. Can you comment on that?

Gonzalez: I spoke to her. It's not religious and it's not creationism. It was like talking to a wall, like talking to a post ...

O'Leary: I have noticed in the popular science media, a huge, almost obsessive interest in the idea that there are many universes and that therefore ours only accidentally works. How seriously is this idea taken by professional astronomers and for what reasons?

Gonzalez: There is a mix of views among physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists. Accredited scientists generally are mostly very skeptical, and many don't even view it as science. You can never test the idea. I've had many conversations with colleagues who are very skeptical You see it brought up frequently in pop science journals and preprints. Among practical scientists in one- on-one discussion - they say that stuff is pure speculation! Yet it is taken very seriously in popular science magazines.

Gonzalez has appealed to the Board of Regents of Iowa, in his tenure case. Beyond that, he is an astronomer looking for a job with people who can tolerate the idea that the universe might show evidence of design and Earth might be positioned for exploration. Captain Picard of Star Trek would love him, I am sure.

* Correction: Originally, the posts had said "on" a spiral arm, but Guillermo Gonzalez has kindly written me to say that my notes are in error. We are between spiral arms.