Steve: Anke, tell us a little bit about yourself. Where are you based? And, when you’re not busy working in the sciences – which we’ll talk about in a moment – what keeps you busy?
Anke: Sure. I’m based in Cambridge where I work as a postdoctoral researcher, which means I spend most of my time at the University doing research. Originally, I’m from the Netherlands, so I’m still getting used to the different cultures in the UK compared to the Netherlands. Outside of work, I enjoy singing. I sing in a choir, the Cambridge University Gospel Choir, which is loads of fun! I also spend time at church and attend a Bible study group at church during the week. I enjoy playing board games online to kind of turn my brain off.
Steve: I’m always really fascinated by how people, especially in the sciences, get into the fields that they do, especially when it’s very specialized things. Reading your bio, it says that you are an observational astronomer in the field of galactic archaeology. I think that’s probably the best job title I’ve ever heard! I’d love my business card to say ‘galactic archaeologist’ – it’s brilliant.
What led you into pursuing astronomy in particular? And where did your studies begin?
Anke: I think one of the first things I remember related to astronomy is looking through a big telescope – well, actually a smallish one – for the first time and seeing the rings of Saturn and looking at Jupiter and seeing its beautiful cloud bands. That just really stuck with me. I remember talking about it at school – I think I was 10 – and telling everyone about it. In high school I was good at maths and physics, I really enjoyed solving the puzzles of the equations and finding the right answer, which is so satisfying. I think a lot of people have a very romantic view of astronomy, but it’s just physics with application to the universe. At first I didn’t think I wanted to make astronomy my job, because I thought I would stop loving it if I did. I really like languages as well, and I considered studying something language-related, but I went to some university open days and realized I really felt at home among scientists, and science was truly the thing I enjoyed doing, so that’s why I decided to study astronomy, and I’m very glad I did.
I studied my undergrad and masters in the Netherlands at the University of Groningen and then I went off to do a PhD in Germany in Potsdam. That’s when I really started working on the field of galactic archaeology. In University, I became fascinated by stars and the laws that govern stars to be the way they are. I remember learning about a very famous diagram in astronomy which shows the colour versus the brightness of stars, and there’s a very clear sequence where stars live, and they typically cannot be outside of it. And it’s purely fundamental physics that determines this, which I thought was so interesting. So, I went around asking for a project with the Hertzsprung Russell diagram and ended up working on stars and the history of stars and how that connects to the history of the Milky Way – which is what galactic archaeology is.
Steve: It’s such an interesting area of research. When I was growing up in South Africa I remember going on trips out into the bush and spending just hours and hours looking up at the starts on these beautifully clear nights. It’s really something that moves us to a sense of awe at the sheer size and beauty of the universe. Can you think of one highlight of your career so far?
Anke: During my PhD, I started building a new project from the ground up together with my supervisor, which is called the Pristine Inner Galaxy Survey, or ‘PIGS’ for short. It has taken many years to develop this project and see the harvest – getting the observations, doing the hard work, and then all the papers that that come out of that – has been incredibly rewarding. And I think it’s also the thing I’m known for within the field…PIGS! I’m not sure that’s the thing you want to be known for, ha-ha.
Steve: And what’s the main focus and goal of that project?
Anke: The purpose of the project is to find the oldest stars in the in the centre of the Milky Way. We typically can recognize them by their atmospheres being quite pristine in chemical elements, because when these stars formed in the early Universe, there were not many elements around yet. The Big Bang only produces hydrogen and helium, and the heavier elements get slowly built up over time after stars start forming and exploding and spreading their nuclear fusion products. The Sun for example is quite rich in elements. I am looking for the most element-poor stars. Mostly we look for these in other regions of the Milky Way, because the centre is quite difficult, but that’s where we expect the very oldest stars to be. We undertook the PIGS project to find these stars in the centre, and that has been quite successful.
Steve: I’ll ask you a little bit more about that in in a moment, but changing the subject for a moment, you mentioned that outside of the sciences work you’re quite involved with your church and even sing in a gospel choir! Tell me a little bit more about your Christian faith. How did you become a Christian, and what does that look like practically, is it a big part of your life?
Anke: So, I grew up in a Christian family, which I’m very grateful for, and have called myself a Christian as long as I can remember. There have been phases where I’ve started to think more deeply about various aspects of my faith. For example, when I started studying, and started interacting more closely with Christians from other backgrounds and people who did not believe in God. It was very helpful to be able to think through various questions with peers in the Christian student group I joined at my university.
I also started to think about science and faith a bit more at university, which continued during my PhD and is still ongoing! Growing up I felt a tension between mainstream science and the Christian faith. But then over the years, really studying astronomy and the history of the Universe for myself, I changed my perspective. Science tells us how God made it all, and it’s amazing – the way He set up the long and complex history of the universe from the beginning. Being a scientist, I very much think of God as the creator, as the Person who holds the universe in His hands. It’s also so amazing to have this really, really big picture of God, the Creator, and then seeing Jesus as God in human form. And that contrast, I think, enhances the beauty of the Christian story for me even more.
Steve: Thanks so much for sharing that. You alluded to the different ways that different Christian understand and interpret some things. Sometimes Christians can hold to certain interpretations that end up being wrong, but then again, so do scientist a lot of the time. So, I guess we all need to try being humble and keep learning and doing the best we can in interpreting the Bible and also interpreting the world around us with the tools of science. But sometimes that can lead to the idea that, well, science and faith must be at war. And that leads to my next question, specifically about your experience in the sciences. Many people have this idea that as a Christian you simply switch your brain off, and you should be in the sciences. Have you ever experienced that attitude in the workplace or in the world of research?
Anke: I have very rarely experienced any direct antagonism, and especially when people know I’m a Christian. If they don’t know you’re a Christian, they might make jokes about Christianity or faith, assuming that there’s no Christians in the room because we’re among scientists. I have experienced loneliness in thinking I’m the only Christian, and sometimes maybe a bit of the fear that people are going to be hostile against me if they find out I believe in God. But I very rarely actually experienced that. When I tell people, they generally are surprised but also intrigued in that I am a Christian and a scientist, and think I think they kind of respect that in some way.
Steve: I think the whole idea of there being a war between faith and science is really just promoted by a few very loud individuals in the popular media who’ve painted the picture. What about the idea that you have to switch your brain off? it’s almost like here’s the sciences – and, sure, you can have your faith – but it doesn’t touch on the sciences side of things at all?
Anke: In conversation, I would start by asking people why they think faith and science cannot go together. This will likely be based on their assumptions about the way the world works, their “worldview”. Then we can discuss those assumptions. And assumptions can be challenged, they can be changed, and they can be supported by evidence in various ways. I think science, in that sense, can be used as a tool to support or question different worldviews, but it’s not itself a worldview. Thinking about worldviews and science as a tool in that sense is quite helpful.
Steve: Yeah, that’s fantastic. And that, I think, is the difference between ‘science’ and ‘scientism’. You seem to be saying there that science can be a tool that can even, in a way, point to God – would you agree with that? Personally, I’m no great astronomer, but it’s something that I’m very interested in – especially as I engage with university students on the question of God’s existence. I’m sure you’re aware of the idea of the fine tuning of the universe to sustain life. With your background, what are your thoughts? Do you think there’s something useful there for Christians to use that data when they’re engaging with friends who are maybe a little sceptical?
Anke: Yes, I’m quite familiar with those arguments and the data. I think it can be summarized as the idea that the universe looks like it’s been set up very precisely. So, if you change some of the fundamental laws of nature, or the way that the ratio of matter to certain forces has been set up, that you wouldn’t get a Universe allowing life to exist.
For example, the speed of the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. If it was slightly lower, the universe would have collapsed back in on itself due to gravity. So, there would not be a universe, and it’s kind of hard to get life in that case. Or if the universe expands too quickly, you’d have an empty universe. You would just get atoms so separated from each other they will never interact with each other, and you’d have the most boring universe possible. But what we actually have is that the expansion is very, very precise, and if it was even slightly different, we wouldn’t have this universe where you can get matter to clump together and form stars and galaxies and planets, etc.
Another example that’s close to my research area is the fact that we have the elements of the periodic table that we need for life to exist. If the balance of the fundamental forces was slightly different, you could end up with just hydrogen (protons), which is very boring! Or you can also have a scenario where you actually have no hydrogen at all. You only have the heavier elements, which is an issue in various ways but for example you wouldn’t have any water in that case. So again, that is the fundamental forces have been set up very precisely. But also, the fact that you have this long history in the universe of stars forming, they make all the elements. They explode. There are different types of explosions that make different elements. And we need all of these different things and billions of years of history of the universe to build it all up. I find that amazing.
So, we’re looking at all these things together. It was quite surprising to physicists who first discovered that everything was so precisely set up, and there’s no fundamental reason that the universe should be this way. So, it seems to be extremely unlikely if it happens at random, but it makes a lot of sense if there’s a designer to the universe who intended for there to be life inside the universe. Of course, in that case the designer would make a universe that can host and make life. So, I think the way this argument is helpful is to acknowledge it’s not proof, but it could be used as evidence. We never prove anything, except maybe in maths. But you can look at the evidence and see which scientific theory or which worldview it supports best. I think it all fits extremely well with the worldview in which there is a Creator God.
Steve: I like that approach – you’re looking for the inference to the best explanation, which is part of the scientific method.
Anke: Yes. And if people are interested in fine-tuning, I would recommend a book titled ‘A Fortunate Universe’ by Lewis and Barnes, which really goes into the physics of fine tuning. It’s written by a non-believer and a believer, both physicists. For many chapters they discuss all the different examples of fine tuning and exactly how fine-tuned all these different things are. Then in the final chapter they have a discussion with each other about the interpretation. So, I would recommend that if people are willing to sit in the detailed examples of fine tuning as well as the interpretation of it.
Steve: So, here’s a related question: what do you think for you personally is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God?
Anke: I think for people like me, people interested in the sciences, it’s quite helpful to use arguments from science. We all value science very much, and it’s useful to establish this shared basis and then point out that there are some surprising things in science that are a bit puzzling if you have a worldview that is not theism. For example, the fact that the universe is fine-tuned, that it’s orderly, that there are laws of nature that describe the universe in a very simple way, and that it results in a cosmos that is stable and predictable. It definitely didn’t need to be this way. To me, that reflects the reliability of the Creator. It tells us something about the character of the Creator, as well as the fact that there is a Creator.
Adding something for me personally too, I think for Christianity specifically, the thing that I keep coming back to is the trustworthiness of the Gospels. As just one example, there are some very surprising things in the Gospels that wouldn’t make sense if they were made up stories, supporting that they were written by eyewitnesses. There is so much good material related to this, which I’m glad I can rely on.
Steve: You’re right when it comes to engaging with those in the sciences. Starting from the science side of things and building your way up from there – that’s very helpful.
What would you say to young Christians who are maybe looking to enter the sciences, but they have some questions. They’ve maybe heard this idea that you have to either choose faith or science – but you can’t have both. How would you encourage them?
Anke: If you’re interested in the sciences, I would say go for it! I find it such a privilege to be able to study God’s creation during your studies, and now, even as a job I get paid to study God’s creation, which sometimes blows my mind. I think there’s nothing to be afraid of. God made the world, so it must be consistent with His character and what He revealed about himself in other ways. So, we should study it in in all of its beautiful detail. That’s what we’re called to do, especially if we have talents in in the sciences. Maybe that’s the way that God is hoping to use you in the future. One thing I would recommend is to look out for other Christians in science – look for other students and look for mentors and support each other.
Steve: Other side of the coin then: what would you say to someone who has been in the sciences, and maybe they’ve started seeing all of this data and felt a niggling and wondering if maybe it’s all pointing to something beyond the material physical realm. Maybe there is this God out there.
Anke: I guess the same thing. Go for it! What do you have to lose by looking into it, and what might there be to gain? What we do as scientists is to look at all the different evidence and weigh it up, to see what theory is best supported. So, you could just explore the evidence and the stories. You could investigate the assumptions that you have that might be preventing you from believing in God and ask if they really have to be true – or maybe there is another way of thinking about the world that might be more consistent!
Steve: Anke, thanks so much for taking the time to chat to me – it’s been really fascinating and encouraging.
Anke: My pleasure! Thanks for having me.
