Replies

A little research showed me this...

www.detectingdesign.com/Nobel%20Laureates%20Who%20Favor%20Intelligent%20Design.doc

Nobel Laureates Who Favor Intelligent Design
Compiled by: Sean D. Pitman M.D
1/1/2007

Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor makes the following interesting argument:

“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially.”

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml

Dr. Robert Gange is a research scientist (cryophisics), engineer, and adjunct professor the David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton. He just so happened to write a pro-creation book entitled, “Origins and Destiny”. Aside from the book itself, the back cover has this interesting endorsement from the late mathematician, physicist, and Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner (1963, physics):

“I was particularly pleased with Dr. Gange’s refusal of the idea of materialism, and the convincing arguments supporting that refusal. In fact, the book will be a welcome response to materialism. Good luck, for a good book!” (http://www.ccel.us/gange.toc.html#Ab)

Wigner also noted in his widely quoted paper, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences, that scientists often take for granted the remarkable—even miraculous—effectiveness of mathematics in describing the real world:

“The enormous usefulness of mathematics is something bordering on the mysterious . . . . There is no rational explanation for it . . . . The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.” - Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13 (1960): 1-14.

Interesting comments for an acclaimed “modern” genius with a Nobel Prize in physics. Such comments seem to mirror Einstein’s well-known observation:

“You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way . . . . [T]he kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.” Albert Einstein, Letters to Solovine (New York: Philosophical Library, 1987), 131.
Richard E Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry, as asked to present the keynote address at Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents’ Recognition Program. In his address he discussed the increasing lifespan of humans as a result of cures and treatments for various infections and diseases. He urged his listeners to seriously consider their role as “higher species” on this planet. He also mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creation, Darwin versus the Biblical Genesis account, noting that the burden of proof is on those who do not believe that “Genesis was right, and there was a creation, and that the Creator is still involved”. (1)

After reading the book “Origins of Life” by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (2), among other books by Rana, Richard Smalley make the following endorsement: “ Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred.” (3)

Toward the last days of his life, in an interview with William Dembski, Smalley predicted that ID would be mainstreamed in five years and that evolution, in its conventional materialistic sense, would be dead within ten. Although I am personally just a bit skeptical as to the time frame, it will be interesting to see if his predictions are eventually borne out. (4)

1. http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/story.asp?S=2382961&nav=CcWvRbj5
2. http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Life-Biblical-Evolutionary-Models/dp/1576833445/ref=pd_rhf_p_1/105-8093794-4249248
3. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05100605.html
4. http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1737