All good comments, Bones. The "why do we care" aspect of your post assumes a pragmatic element to science. But science is not always pragmatic. Why do I care if gravity is caused by "force" or by "curved space". For the purposes of engineering, Galileo's law works just fine, and I don't need anything else.

The only reason I can offer you for the test is curiosity - or possibly a desperation to prove the universe either is or is not designed.

In that spirit, and in the context of evolution, what evidence would cause you to change your mind?

Icon speaketh the truth. This is scientific research, scientific data, scientific theory, scientific experiments, scientific conclusions and, the closest, scientific law which is always assumed to hold until it doesn't. There's no scientific fact, there's just stuff that's as close as dammit.


People like to think they're dealing with facts, but that's people. Scientists are people. Except Doctor Lizardface, who's a lizard.


You're right to pick up on this point. I don't believe science will solve problems of origins any better than religion, except to the degree that it will hold them as being unknown rather than making stuff up. However, no-one believes the universe will die because of entropy. It may become utterly useless because of entropy, but I know lots of useless people who are still not dead, and one dead person who's a real pain the hole.


Shoulda stopped there. I think this is awesome.


You've hit upon something very important to this debate and others along the lines of 'It's all too amazing to have made itself'. The most significant technological trend is to downsize. Macroscopic devices can get away with having a lot of material to do a very specific job. Nanotechnology cannot afford this: it would seem that nanodevices must be less precise. How do we get around this? Quite simply by embracing nature. Throw out the concept of 'man-made' and do what nature does: self-assembly (albeit man-guided). The very phenomena you find difficult to accept right now - self-organisation - will be the technology of tomorrow. (What day is it? Wednesday? Better make that the day after tomorrow.) All theistic proclamations of what is impossible in nature without God will be accepted as the everyday by schoolkids in a generation. Woo hoo! Sorry, I was far too happy about that.


True, no-one understands it all. Ignore anyone who says they do. But we understand it well enough to use it. QM is a very practical science.


Or... keep logic and embrace probability..? Yeah, that sounds more sensible.


Whooo... let the case finish before you pass verdict.

I'm not sure I came across right there. I mean why bother doing more tests on top of the ones done hundreds of times? (The Milikan drop experiment is standard undergraduate fare.) If you accept (1), no point. If you accept (2), no point. If you accept (3), no point and you're weird. So why bother?


If you mean you want to test it for yourself rather than take documented experiments on face value, cool.. Just become an experimental physicist.


You talking about the footprint? Like I said, one expert, preferrably not someone with a vested interest in concluding one way or the other, to conclude that it might be human. That's it. We're not operating in some conspiracy here. If there's evidence that man might have walked with dinosaurs, it will be considered though not accepted. If there's strong evidence, it would be considered and judgement suspended. If there's overwhelming evidence... people LIKE Nobel prizes.

First of all, I wanted to thank you for your contributions. While we may not necessarily agree on everything, the goal is to share ideas peacefully, and you've shown you are one of respect.



Probably not as much as you think. The problem is that I don't have a talent for articulating thought well, and it's causing misinterpretation.



Hm, I really have not the slightest idea where you got this impression from the things I've typed. In fact, I thought I clarified more than one time I'm advocating methods that allow us to evaluate our experience; I'm not one that enjoys humoring illogical fantastical conjurations and then pawning them off as something scientific, for instance.



It is, you're absolutely right. But let us remember that scientific theories are not synonymous with the word "opinion". These aren't just random speculations, there is mathematical coherency and much consideration going into the establishment of these theories. "Theory", however, in general English semantics, can encompass wild speculation, for instance, "I have a theory that George Bush is the anti-Christ". This is not the "theory" we're speaking of here.



This is predominantly where I feel the dissonance within our communication lies. I'm saying that intelligence cannot be proven or disproven, as it cannot be evaluated within the context of an objective world, scientifically. Now, suppose someone came up with a method for evaluating intelligence in a material world (not humans, remember). It could fly, but I personally would not call this science; I would call it psuedo-science at best, as there is nothing being Observed or Tested within an objective measurement. By objective I mean without ambiguity. "2", for instance, is not open for interpretation, it has a universal understanding.

Not only is "intelligence" highly debatable amongst humans, the word itself is abstract in many forms. If we wanted, we could also measure the amount of "Love", "Joy", "Hate", "Luck" within the known world, but this, again, in my eyes, would not be considered science. The interpretations of these words alone are entirely subjective. These words are not like "2+2=4", for instance, they are ambiguous. Science is about accuracy and precision. To prove a material world is "Intelligent" or "Stupid" scientifically, does not make any sense to me. "Intelligent Design" is no different that a theory called "Joyous Design" or "Lucky Design".



I'll do my best to explain how I've come to the conclusion there's only one possibility when I hear, "Intelligent Design". Besides the history behind Creationism and Intelligent Design which Didy has referenced more than one time, there is meaning behind the two words "Intelligent" and "Design". "Design" implies there is creation of some form, or at least a deliberation of creation. Creation, on the level we're speaking, is innate creation ie. "What started it all!". Now, "God" is a notion, just as "Goblin", "Fairy", "Government", and can exist depending on the consciousness rationalizing. When we say there is design behind the world, we're saying (fill in placeholder notion here) did it.

Next, "Intelligence" implies, to me, that there is a greater understanding amongst (fill in placeholder notion here). For if it did not have a greater understanding, it would not have been able to intelligently design the world. Since the claim is "The world is intelligently designed", I assume that it's implied (fill in placeholder notion here) did it. For if there is no (fill in placeholder notion here), where exactly are they claiming origin?

With all of this said, I can conclude that the claim of "Intelligent Design" is out of the scope of science. The claims made are abstract, not capable of being tested or observed in our physical realm. To say the claim "Intelligent Design" is TRUE or FALSE is not my intention here, but rather to point out "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with science as we know it. "Intelligent Design" may be evaluated (and possibly even proven) within another method that bears more flexibility, but it is not science.

I hope this post sheds some light,

Zeth

Bones-O!

Thank nice post I read it carefully :bigsmile:


Case against ID :perplexed:

Since no one has come up with a meaningful argument "against intelligent design" I will do it for them below :perplexed:

The intelligent-design (ID) movement began in the late 1980s as a challenge to the perceived secularization of the scientific community, which leaders of the movement maintained had been colored with the philosophy of atheistic naturalism. ID theorists have focused their critique primarily on biological evolution and the neo-Darwinian paradigm.

"I do not belong to this movement or any other movement"

IDs claim that because certain biological features appear to be "irreducibly complex" and thus incapable of evolving incrementally by natural selection, they must have been created by the intervention of an intelligent designer.

Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or "scientific" creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

Intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language.

Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program.

In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of "irreducible complexity" in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes.

Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection.

This shows that what may appear to be "irreducibly complex" today may be explained naturalistic tomorrow.

Scientific explanations are always incomplete. We grant that a comprehensive account of evolutionary natural history remains open to complementary philosophical, metaphysical, and religious dimensions.

Darwinian natural history does preempt certain accounts of creation, leading, for example, to the contemporary creationist and ID controversies.

However, in most instances, biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels.

In many religious traditions, such as some found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, the notion of intelligent design is irrelevant.

Natural theology may be a legitimate enterprise in its own right, but resist the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science but I oppose efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism).

When you come back to basics it is all about belief or faith if you like both wise, anti ID or pro ID

MAYBE WE SHOULD DO A POLL ??

Oh, then maybe you didn't understand me. I should mention that the little discussion with physicists I mentioned didn't bother them at all. Not because they had evidence that electrons exist, but because of the Copenhagen interpretation, which is very instrumentalist in nature. Schrodinger's cat doesn't matter if you're not trying to claim matter at the quantum level actually is stochastic.

So, I'd say no one has ever fully "seen" an electron. I don't mean that in just a literal way. I mean that with respect to Heisenberg's uncertainty. The Milikan experiment demonstrates the effect of a phenomena we call the electron. Whether there is a particle (or a wave) that exists to create that phenomena is a different matter.

But, this is way off track. It was meant as an example. And, I don't really care. I'll grant you existence of the electron.



Sure. I get what you're saying. But this example speaks to some of the subjectivity in geology/paleontology. I'll offer an obvious example. What if, more than footprints, someone found a primate fossil in the same layer as a dinosuar fossil. Would that be convincing? I actually think it would not convince some (maybe even some in this forum). Someone would explain how a catastrophic event caused the separate geological layers to mix. Or, what if it wasn't even as shocking as a primate. Some recent genetic evidence suggests (according to descent theory) that chickens are related to descendents of T-Rex. But what if a chicken fossil were found next to a T-Rex?

Of course that is all speculation. We're basically at the mercy of luck and whatever fossil evidence paleontologists happen to stumble upon. Is there something more definitive?

Okay, spell it out for me. My understanding was that your proposing some kind of experiment to measure the uniformity of electron properties. My response is this has been done over and over, not your experiment, obviously, but others.


You could argue no-one has ever really "seen" a tree. We identify it by its properties, which are numerous. We identify electrons by theirs, which are few and easier to count.


Oh no! On another thread I'm denying the existence of photons. If you grant me the existence of electrons I'm obliged to argue their non-existence. I thought it was electron uniformity that was the issue here, not existence.


Oh, if we're talking convincing me, rather than changing my mind about the certainty of human-dinosaur non-co-existence (phew, hyphen overload), then I'd be looking for great consensus and I'd have to view the papers on it. Same goes for the other examples. But, like I said, if it were that convincing, it would make history. I'm comfortable with paradigm shifts, less so with 'but what if...' as a basis to reject the current one. (I don't mean that's what you're doing.)

I said I wouldn't do this and now I am. Rats! The example of the tree is different from that of the electron. I don't know how many parameters are needed to describe a tree, but call that number x. I could set up an experiment to simultaneously (*see note) measure all those parameters on one tree. I could then do that to a second tree, and thereby note their differences.

I can't do that with electrons. I'm forced to make multiple measurements and average the results.

*Note: Unless someone wants to say something anal about how I can't make the measurements "simultaneously" because the electrons in the tree move to different states as my multiplexer records data. Regardless, I still see these as different.



Not the specifics I was looking for, but fair enough and I'll let it go.

I happen to work very closely with and talk a great deal with a few real scientists who support my ideas in this forum. Dr. George Henning, a PhD in astrophysics who wrote his Doctorate Thesis on dimensional physics for example, supports firmly the idea that we cannot know anything to be fact but only assume the truth of the utmost probability of events.



First of all, my spelling is poor because I am
A) a programmer on systems that are quite beyond you which makes me a very busy man and I don't have time to format.
B) Don't care enough to correct myself. Effective communication means that you understand me which you obviously did since you were able to respond with such a defamatory retort.
C) It is funny that you mention this since you have very poor grammer. My words may be mispelled but atleast I can form a proper sentence.

Second: Simply because you know how to read a book does not make you a meber of the scientific community and the scientific community is far more expansive than those few people that you do know. In short, you do not know what you are talking about since you do not know every scientist. We have both spoken from our own perception of the scientific community and were both wrong in making presumptuous accusations. I do apologize that you do not know more open minded people.

Third: I happen to be a student of physics and I am also a teacher and tutor in philosophy. Physics and philosophy are quite linked as they both have the goal of explaining why without prejudice which seems to be another concept beyond you considering the rudeness of your retorts thus far.



So where did almighty god come from? Consciousness is not infinite. Eventually, it will get bored and desire to end itself. When you know everything, can do anything and there is nothing left to do; why continue on?

Alright, Ill explain.

To say that both side take EQUAL faith is quite the extraordinary statement from your part as well. It is not a coin-flip. The evidence, and lackthereof, dont point to a god or gods but rather there isnt one. Theism has gone from attacking astronomy, to biology, to psychology and now theyre trying to attack neuroscience because the best they can do is argue from ignorance and advocate the "god of the gaps." Quite the redundant routine from the religious perspective and always failing in the process by getting their gap filled in the end. However, if you can show me how they are both EQUAL then by all means show, because I cant find one shred of evidence for the existence of a god... if you can even define god.

Right. There is no god.

But, there are creators.

I am one, and I agree with his statement. Would you like my credentials? I'll PM them to you if you want.

Scientific conclusions are nothing more than probabilistic presumptions of generalizability. That's self-evident, because no one has the power of infinite observation.

I know the thread has moved on, but I thought I should respond to this question. My initial wording was clumsy. Proponents of irreducible complexity tend to present their case in this way: 'I cannot think of any way in which X could have evolved'. Obviously, the logic is bunk. Also, everything I've seen substituted for X has also been explained using evolutionary theory.
The flagella of certain bacteria has been cited time and time again by ID proponents, most notably Behe. He argues that the flagella's "engine" is irreducibly complex because if we were to remove any single part of the engine, the flagella would no longer have any use to the organism. Of course, real scientists point to similar, functioning structures that are missing far more than one part of the engine. The wiki article on irreducible complexity covers this well enough for a lay person such as myself.

Thanks for answering. I've not spent much time looking at irreducible complexity, so I can't say much about it. That means I don't have any biological examples, but it would certainly apply to my mechanical world.

One often cited example of irreducible complexity is the coagulation cascade, which as you may recall is a sequential activation of proteins in the setting of blood-vessel injury that ultimately results in clot formation. People with hemophilia A lack factor VIII, for instance. But not all components of the clotting cascade are essential to the function of the cascade, it has two major mechanisms for activation (the extrinsic and intrinsic pathways), and it has exceptionally complex interactions with other protein cascades (mainly inflammatory cascades like bradykinin). It turns out that there ARE ancestral forms of the clotting cascade, and in other organisms (like invertebrates) the function is more of an intercellular communication system. So with evolution the cascade, different functions and interactions have developed and different proteins have become incorporated.

An analagous story is true for most every such example, whether it's aerobic metabolism, DNA regulation, molecular embryology, whatever.

And we can identify ancestral forms in other organisms by looking at DNA sequence homology, which is much more reliable than just looking at function.

Thanks for the example, Aedes. I think I get what you're saying at a high level, though not necessarily the details.

As I thought about this, I was trying to make a mechanical analogy, and had an interesting epiphany, so I thought I'd share. Basically, I found my analogy to be incommensurable with yours. I've never encountered that as anything more than a concept, so it was pretty fascinating.

The analogy I used was an internal combustion engine. As I consider the various components of the engine, there is an irreducible complexity (IC). The engine must have a fuel delivery system to function. I can create a slider-crank mechanism without a fuel delivery system, but it will just sit there and do nothing.

At first your example seemed to focus more on the "improvements" to a specific system, say the fuel system. Sure, fuel injectors are more advanced than the simple drip systems. But just because a fuel injector is IC doesn't mean there aren't simpler alternatives for more primitive engines (i.e., drip systems). If that were your point, it would be an error. That is not what IC claims. It claims that the engine can't function without a fuel system, regardless of the form of that fuel system.

It was at that point that I realized my problem of incommensurability. I am assuming a purpose. I certainly could build a slider-crank without a fuel system. It just wouldn't have any purpose.

So, under a different assumption - a random assumption - I could randomly develop various machine components without expecting them to have a purpose. As long as they do no harm, they can be passed along to the next generation. Then, at some point in the future, two random components may come together and aid survival.

That's all well and good. But I do have two additional observations.

[edit] First, though genetics may be random, it is still an assumption that this means biology has no direction. Maybe it does.

Second, I read a book by Berndt Heinrich called Bumblebee Economics. It's an interesting book because the puzzling question he studies is why bumblebees survive. They are very poorly equipped for survival. They are barely able to subsist from one year to the next, and the slightest disturbance in the environment wipes out a colony. So why haven't they either better adapted or died out? He never really answers the question, but it does raise an interesting issue.

Given the random assumption of genetics, each additional restriction makes it less and less and less likely that an organism will survive. Therefore, it seems the only environment where benign mutations would remain are those that are "friendly" or "passive", i.e. those where food is abundant and hostility is minimal. In the case of the bumblebee, a "benign" mutation could actually be harmful because of the extra energy expended in the development of something that will never be used. It would seem the same is true of any species, though to varying extents. Further, in the case of humans, sprouting some oddity could drastically reduce your chances of getting a girlfriend. I don't know how much that would carry over to other species, but it seems it could.

Just some thoughts.

Deleted

Reposted where it belongs

Alan

I had to laugh on that one.Thanks. its been a long day. needed that.

Resha, you've made some very astute observations about the crux of the problem.

And you're absolutely right that the problem boils down to one of teleology, i.e. whether or not something happens with an end or purpose in mind. Engineering is a teleologic endeavor. So for the most part, when you build an internal combustion engine or build a piece of furniture, you have the final product specifically in mind in your selection of parts. It's not that every part is essential to the workings, I mean you might be able to leave off a screw or use less grease or something, but for the most part you have a parsimonious design -- only what you need.

Biology is not teleological. For instance, strictly speaking, you don't secrete bile in order to emulsify fat. You eat fat, fat stimulates secretion of cholecystokinin (CCK), CCK stimulates contraction of the gallbladder, bile is released into the duodenum, and fat becomes emulsified by contact with bile. There are all kinds of positive and negative feedback mechanisms like this, and the evolutionary explanation is that the ones that produce favorable outcomes are the ones that are preserved.

If this were put together with a purpose, then we wouldn't (in logical terms) have a whole bunch of nonfunctional junk in our DNA, we wouldn't have vestigial organs, and we wouldn't have an embryologic development process that mimics our ancestry -- it would be unique. (The embryonic development of a monkey and a human, two close relatives, diverges much later in development than that of a zebrafish and a human or a fruit fly and a human -- yet the latter two are similar enough to humans early on that they are commonly used models for early embryology).



Now, to get to the heart of the matter, we need to talk about the irreducible complexity issue by picking something else to which one could apply such arguments. In other words, forget about evolution for a second. Is there any other highly complex system in the world that has come about by diversification, selection, and adaptation such that great complexity has arisen from something simple?

Well, yes. There are many examples, but I'll cut to the chase and name the best example: language.

There are ancestral languages and recent languages. In Europe there are Germanic languages, in which there were several languages native to Germany (including Anglo, Saxon, Jute), and several related languages in Scandinavia (like modern Norwegian, Old Norse and Icelandic). Clearly all these come from a common ancestral Germanic language. Similarly, there are romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian) that all arise from an ancestral language Latin. And there are semitic languages (Arabic and Hebrew), slavic languages (Russian, Polish, Czech), and many other examples. And all of these have a common ancestral tongue themselves that extends all the way to the languages of India.

So what's happened is that an ancestral language group, generally called the Proto-Indoeuropeans, spoke a language that was distributed widely throughout Eurasia. But because of the relative isolation of groups from one another, the languages developed in isolation over time to the point where they became mutually unintelligible -- though a linguist can find common (i.e. ancestral) word roots among them all -- like how Agni (the Hindu god of fire) is a linguistic cognate of the English word "ignite".

Regional differences in language are easy to appreciate. I mean people in Boston have a much different accent than people in North Carolina (and I've lived in both places), and there are even different words and expressions. And we're talking about just a ~350+ year stretch since these areas were colonized. Imagine thousands of years.

So diversity is generated by isolation of subgroups who have a common ancestor. But diversity can also be generated by meeting of two different groups. William the Conqueror brought French to England in 1066, which merged with Old English (which was a totally Germanic tongue). So the language that developed thereafter was a hybrid of the two, which is why modern English is a bizarre mix of German and Latin grammar and vocabulary. And the fact that the French (the Normans) became the aristocracy in England after the conquest explains why in modern English our more formal and technical words come from the French (like "defecate") whereas our more vulgar and informal words come from the German (like "sh-t").

There are plenty of others of these "pidgin" tongues -- take Haitian Creole, which is a mix of French and the indigenous language of Benin. Again, diversity being generated through time by effectively a cross-breeding of languages.

There are also smaller scale adaptations. This is why we have words/phrases like "sushi", "a la carte", "jihad", and "kvetch" in our common vocabulary in English. And it's why Spanish, which does not have any words with the letters "K" or "W", has adapted those letters to its alphabet because of foreign words.

Finally, there is selection of useful versus useless words. Words go in and out of vogue, some are useful, and some become useless as time passes (words like halberk and stave have certainly become uncommon with the obsolescence of medieval weaponry), but we now have words like internet.


So what if a hardcore fundamentalist comes along and says that all of this is crap, the diversity of language all comes from the Tower of Babel in Genesis, which made people's languages unintelligible. And we point to all the common threads that give us a phylogeny (a map of ancestry and relationships) among the languages of the world. And they say it's impossible, diversity can't be naturally generated out of something simple, because you can't take parts out of the functioning modern phenomenon and allow it to work.

How similar these arguments are. It's almost ironic that no one objects to linguistics education, because it's the same book of the Bible in which God's acts account for the appearance of languages.

But like with linguistics, diversity and complexity CAN and IS generated through genetic processes over time... because we're talking about LOTS of time and LOTS of generations and LOTS of genetic material.


You're wise to bring up the thought that having unnecessary or redundant structures or genes imposes a fitness cost on an organism. This is an area of some interest within my field of infectious diseases. What happens if you take a patient with HIV, treat him with antiretrovirals for years and years, he's poorly compliant, and he develops resistance mutations? Is there a fitness cost to the resistant virus in the absence of selective pressure? Looks like there is -- because you take them off the drugs and patients' predominant HIV genotype reverts to the wild type (non-resistant). This has been shown in various other scenarios with drug resistance. But it's not uniformly true -- MRSA (methicillin resistant staph aureus) is an example where the drug resistant form is taking root even in people who haven't been on a drug that exerts selective pressure.


I wanted to add one more point. Linguistics very closely mimics and corroborates human evolution. Remember that small groups of Nilosaharan humans are the ones that left Africa and populated the entire remainder of the world. Because of this, there is genetic commonality that EVERYONE in the world outside of Africa shares, and FAR more ancestral diversity within Africa. And this is true for languages too. Africa has more major language groups than any other region on earth. Fascinating stuff.

Alan McDougall






Some great scientists left room in there minds to acknowledge the possibility of an Intelligent Designer

Quotes by them below

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming."

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
"We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein(astronomer)
"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently 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?"

Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
"I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman
(physicist)
"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
"The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Stephen Hawking
Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?"

Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God-the design argument of Paley-updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
"As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
"Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists)
"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
"It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
"The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

Wernher von Braun(Pioneer rocket engineer)
"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science