Amen, David.
Elvis | 09.03.04 - 8:46 pm | #

Just found your blog through Blogs4God and look forward to reading more. I have a degree in physics and astronomy for the U of Washington so am pretty sure I will find your comments interesting. Keep it up!
Matt Jones | Homepage | 09.04.04 - 3:55 am | #

None of these quotes actually indicate that these people think that ID is legitimate. For example:

Cosmologist Bernard Carr:

One would have to conclude that either the features of the universe invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are only coincidence or that the universe was indeed tailor made for life. I will leave it to the theologians to ascertain the identity of the tailor.

This means that either one or the other is the case. No conclusion is stated here.

Here's another example:

Stephen Hawking:

It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of a God who intended to create beings like us.

Yeah...physics is damn difficult. Creation myths...not so difficult. Surely you don't think that Hawking is a ID'er.
BCB | 09.06.04 - 10:20 pm | #

Here;s another one:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought instantly arises that some supernatural agency—or rather Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?

Sure, the thought instantly arises, because its the simplest. When confronted with a problem I come up with many ideas, but not all of them are right.

generally, all these quotes indicate is that there's a propensity among folks to gravitate towards creationist myth claims. But that doesn't make them right.
BCB | 09.06.04 - 10:24 pm | #

Cool blog, David. It would have been nice to have refs for those quotes though.
Kevin | Homepage | 09.07.04 - 2:09 am | #

BCB

If you read the introductory paragraph, you'll see that there was no claim that these scientists believe in design, only in the appearance of design.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.07.04 - 5:22 am | #

David, "appearance of design" isn't much to "believe in." Even Dawkins, that rabid anti-creationist, uses the phrase. In his own words: "Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

I doubt that anyone at the Panda's Thumb believes that organisms don't "appear" designed; their beef is with the sloppy pseudoscience of the ID movement in general. (And, let us remember, many theists see no distinction between evolution and "continuing creation.")
Jim | Homepage | 09.07.04 - 6:14 pm | #

Just to cover another on the list, Hoyle was not a creationist or an IDC'ist. Hoyle was a proponent of panspermia; the proposition that primitive life came to earth by some kind of space borne spores and proceded to evolve from there. His calculations were related to abiogenesis, not evolution, and those calculations have turned out to be fatally flawed in anycase. Jim is exactly right. There's not a scientists I know of who would not be fascinated with real evidence for non human intelligence of any kind, anywhere, especially one meddling with our evolutionary history. But what the DI represents is scientists selling out (Or being shamelessly misquoted). Scientists are human and they will sometimes sell out for the right price. Look at Big Tobacco, they had scientists on the payroll who would swear in court that smoking was not addictive and not bad for your health.
~DS~ | Homepage | 09.07.04 - 6:30 pm | #

DS,
Do you think the folks at SETI are real scientists?
Brett Scollard | 09.08.04 - 8:27 am | #

Yeah Brett. I happen to know a few of them. One of them is my neighbor in fact, and he's attached to NASA. I live ten miles away from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Incidentally, not a single one of the SETI scientists I know buys into the IDC scam. Why do you ask?
DarkSyde | 09.08.04 - 11:07 am | #

Basically I am interested in how they have set up their "intellegence detection system" and how that differs from the ID camp.
Thanks for your help.
Brett Scollard | 09.08.04 - 8:44 pm | #

DS:

Regarding Hoyle:

1) I noted, before his quote, that he was anti-theist. That is what makes his remark so juicy.

2) I have no clue what calculations of his have been shown to be flawed, as you suggested, but of one thing I Am sure. They were NOT his calculations on the nuclear chemistry of stellar evolution--which provide most of the fodder for his lament that someone monkeyed with the works--these analyses are rock solid.

You lost me on the "selling-out" business.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.09.04 - 11:22 am | #

By the way, most of the quotes (except, I think for Krauss's), with first hand references, can be found in:

Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God

by Hugh Ross.

Krauss's quote can be found on page 2 of this article
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.09.04 - 11:32 am | #

LoL the Griffiths quote, David.

I think the way the joke should really run is "If we need an atheist for a debate, we go to the Religious Studies department. The Philosophy department isn't much use"
David Talcott | Homepage | 09.09.04 - 10:24 pm | #

It has long struck me that in relation to any cosmic scale, we humans are pretty puny beings. Our hearing can process only a fraction of the continuum of soundwaves that can be transmitted in our atmosphere; our vision is limited to only one "octave" of the electromagnetic spectrum. By any measure, our ability to sense directly the universe in which we find ourselves is very small compared to the phenomena. Our brains are sufficient to allow us to imagine, analyze, and predict beyond the limits of our immediate senses. But again, by a cosmic measure, we are not far advanced beyond the protists.

This suggests to me that it might be a little early to presume we have the perspective, data, or analytical modalities to be making any sort of final disposition on the matter of a supreme Lord of the Universe.

It is heartening to see your quotes from various physicists; I had heard ugly rumors that some of those names had already cast a vote against...
David March, animator & fiddle | Homepage | 09.21.04 - 12:56 am | #

Besides, a creator of the universe would by definition be OUTSIDE the Universe, not subject to the limitations that DEFINE that universe...
How can science claim to be able to make any sort of judgment or determination on that?

Sorry. I'm sure entire libraries are filled with the life's work of regiments of thinkers far better than I am, devoted to just such questions.
David March, animator & fiddle | Homepage | 09.21.04 - 1:02 am | #

David, I think the idea is not that they say "look, we found part of God's arm" but rather that they are detecting the mark of design in his handiwork.
Some have sugested we lack the capacity to make any sort of final disposition on anything. One may wonder how they came this final disposition on our capacities.
Brett Scollard | 09.22.04 - 10:12 am | #

David is right. Since I am the most intelligent person in the world and my existince is the most closely guarded secret the olagarchist of the world have. I have already proved intelligent design by my gift of Deja Vue. Ask Stephen Hawking. He's the scientist I showed in 1977 when I was 17 years old. Besides it is my theory originally. Oh by the way I use 80% of my brain. Proven.
Richie | 09.29.04 - 3:28 pm | #

The point of these quotes was never that these physicists see God--some do some don't. The point was that they all recognize that their are features of the universe that are so fine tuned as to demand explanation--for the most part by appealing to either ID or infinite parallel universes. Evolutionists, on the other hand, won't even admit to the appearance of design.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.29.04 - 7:11 pm | #

Is ID just answering why?
D. Thomas | 12.02.04 - 10:45 am | #

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Yes, of course, it would -- only Hawking doesn't think the universe *did* begin "in just this way" -- the way he was *rebutting* in the context of that quote.
Anonymous | 02.26.05 - 1:50 am | #

Anonymous:

Notice that I said the "appearance" of design. IN CONTEXT Hawking's quote is an aknowledgement of the appearance of design. He does not believe in design, I didn't say he did, but because it is evident in the bing bang model he then lokks for alternative cosmologies.
David Heddle | Homepage | 02.26.05 - 7:10 am | #