Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal the Purpose of the Universe.

Michael J. Denton Free Press, $27.50, 454 pp. M. Therese Lysaught

Does God exist? Does creation in its very magnificence and intricacy give glory to God the creator? Is creation purposively moving teleologically toward a predetermined end? Is humanity the summit and pinnacle of creation? With some equivocation on the latter point, the Christian tradition has from the beginning answered all these questions resoundingly in the affirmative.

Armed with these convictions, some within the tradition have turned to creation, or rather "nature," to ground theological beliefs. For such "natural theologians," the splendor of creation points to the plausibility or necessity of a great grand Designer; thus we have Aquinas's or Paley's arguments from design, "proofs" for the existence of God upon which generations of college students have cut their philosophical teeth. Following in the legacy of Einstein, many contemporary scientists find themselves increasingly amazed and awed as the secrets of nature are unraveled, unable to resist the powerful impression that behind the complexities of the cosmos lies an unseen but guiding hand. And for many, the postulate of a designer suggests a teleology - that the cosmos is designed for a certain function, naturally evolving toward an end whose initial conditions are implanted in the very infrastructure of nature.

Michael J. Denton stands firmly in this heritage. Denton, the senior research fellow in Human Molecular Genetics at the University of Otago in New Zealand, marshals an astounding array of facts to argue a bold claim: "The aim of this book is, first, to present the scientific evidence for believing that the cosmos is uniquely fit for life as it exists on earth and for organisms of design and biology very similar to our own species, Homo sapiens, and second, to argue that this 'unique fitness' of the laws of nature for life is entirely consistent with the older teleological religious concept of the cosmos as a specifically designed whole, with life and mankind as its primary goal and purpose."

For those given to accept this version of the "anthropic principle," Denton's evidence is impressive. It is so extensive, in fact, that it is almost overwhelming. Denton begins by building on the work of other contemporaries who have put forward similar arguments from within the field of physics and astrophysics, citing Freeman Dyson, Fred Hoyle, and Paul Davies, among others. However, Denton argues, the discoveries of physics find confirmation in spades from recent developments in biology, specifically molecular and cellular biology. Thus, Denton cites not only data from physics and geology that are "precisely fit for life" - for example, supernovae, stars, the gravitational force, the nuclear or strong force, the electromagnetic force, the weak force, the specific properties of water, light, oxygen, carbon, carbon dioxide, all the elements of the periodic table, radioactivity, plate tectonics, and the size of the planet Earth. What is important is that additional factors from biology - the composition and structure of the double helix, the "nanotechnology" of proteins, the importance of metal ions in metabolism, and cellular structure and action - conspire to "give every appearance of having been specifically arranged to that end," namely, the existence of life and specifically human existence. Or as Denton states more firmly, life-as-we-know-it is "not a matter of chance" but rather it is the "inevitable end of natural law."

And not only do "all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in [the] central fact...that the cosmos is a specifically designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose," Denton finds further evidence (not conclusive but highly suggestive) in the specifics of human morphology and ability - for example, that "the design and dimensions of the human body are fit for the handling of fire" and that "the laws of nature conform to mathematical patterns which the human mind seems curiously adapted to grasp." These factors, in conjunction with a myriad of other human capabilities, have uniquely positioned humanity for mastery and exploration of the universe.

As mentioned above, the collective weight of this evidence will strike the reader as amazing, due in no small part to Denton's rather breathless tone and his frequent acclamations of the convergence of various factors as "astonishing." However, for many readers, Denton's overall argument may not be convincing. Most readers will take for granted the "truth" of Darwinian evolution the idea that life-as-we-know-it has evolved more or less randomly, through a series of more or less chance interactions between various organisms and their environments. Denton offers an alternative account to this familiar Darwinian paradigm, yet for at least three reasons readers may not find themselves swayed toward his vision.

First, Denton does not clearly articulate the fundamental assumptions that lie behind his alternative interpretation of the data. For example, he provocatively inverts traditional terminology, environment, as it is given, is "precisely fit for life." Because this linguistic inversion entails a rather profound conceptual shift, readers who are not familiar with anthropic presuppositions will not be equipped to evaluate how Denton moves from data to conclusion.

Second, Denton does not directly address Darwinian evolution (except for a brief and inadequate challenge to the accepted belief in the spontaneity of mutation in chapter 12). If he wishes to convert a Darwinian readership, however, the burden of proof is on Denton to refute Darwinian assumptions, or to make point by point comparisons, on a regular basis, to show how his theory better explains the data.

Finally, although this problem plagues Denton's anthropic colleagues as well, it is not clear here what counts as "evidence." Denton has a hypothesis. Repeatedly, he speaks of "coincidences," "appearances," and how particular natural occurrences give the "impression" of design. But it is not clear how the data of the natural world are logically pieced together to form an argument that supports the conclusions he wants to draw. Rather, what seems decisive for him is simply the preponderance of facts and the great chain of interconnection within the natural world; this is what is supposed to convince the reader. Thus, one could suggest that his display of the laws of nature yields not so much an argument from design as a retrospective accounting for the way things are.

Despite these shortcomings, Denton has pulled together an intriguing array of information. Those interested in the "anthropic" debate or seeking evidence for a teleological accounting of the natural world have in Denton an energetic champion. The rest will ponder the magnificence of creation and await a more careful methodological account of how one moves from discoveries of natural phenomena to cosmic convictions.

M. Therese Lysaught teaches in the religious studies department at the University of Dayton.