INTELLIGENT DESIGN CONFIRMATION

ACCORDING TO HOYLE,  About the Creator and Designed Laws

Sir Fred Hoyle, the distinguished British astronomer and Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, claimed to be an evolutionist and agnostic. He also developed the steady state theory of cosmology. The Nobel Prize was given to his underlings, but was considered for the prize himself.  Following his researching the evolutionary theory in 1982, and later presenting Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution’s Omni Lecture, he concluded  the remote probability of evolution,

He wrote: “If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of …”  Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, January 12, 1982, pp. 27–28.                                                                                                                                                                                                        After years of study, Hoyle wrote about the random emergence of even the simplest cell:“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.” Hoyle on Evolution. Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105.                                                                                       He also wrote about obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously.                                        “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as 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.” Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution, London: Michael Joseph Limited 1983.

Hoyle further said:“The likelihood (probability) of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe,: Even non-living things appear intricately and carefully designed, including our entire galaxy.

 Cristina Chiappini is a research scientist at the Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste. Aside from her theoretical work on the Milky Way’s formation, she also observes planetary nebulae to trace their contribution to the galaxy’s chemical evolution.                                              Evolution from Space, New York, New York: Simon & Schuster 1984, p. 148.

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote:“… it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity … The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear.”                                                                                                     Cristina Chiappini, The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way, American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.

Ilya Prigogine was an eminent chemist and physicist who received two Nobel Prizes in chemistry. Regarding probability of life originating by accident, he said:  “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”   I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28.

Paul Davies is a noted physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and author, was Professor of Mathematical Physics at The University of Adelaide, and helped found the Australian Centre for Astrobiology in Sydney, Australia.   However, Davies stated: “The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability To Order the Universe, New York, New York: Simon and Schuster 1988, p. 203.

“The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design … The universe must have a purpose.”

Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, New York, New York: Simon & Schuster 1984, p. 243.      “I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level ‘God’ is a matter of taste and definition.”

“I hope the foregoing discussion will have convinced the reader that the natural world is not just any old concoction of entities and forces, but a marvelously ingenious and unified mathematical scheme … these rules look as if they are the product of intelligent design. I do not see how that can be denied.”                                                  Paul Davies, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, New York, New York: Simon & Schuster 1993, p. 16, 214.

Christian de Duve is an internationally acclaimed organic chemist, and received a Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for describing the structure and function of organelles in biological cells. Regarding chance assembly of even a single bacteria, he says: “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one. Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”   Christian de Duve, A Guided Tour of the Living Cell, New York, New York: W.H. Freeman & Company; 1984.

Stephen Weinberg is a Nobel Laureate in High Energy Physics and self-described agnostic. Writing in Scientific American, he said: “… how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.”

John Wheeler, the eminent theoretical physicist who helped invent the theory of nuclear fission and coined the term “black hole”, said: “A life-giving factor lies at the center of the whole machinery and design of the world.”    John Wheeler, from John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press 1986, Introduction, p. vii.

Alan Sandage, world renowned cosmologist and winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy, said:“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.”  Alan Sandage, J.N. Willford Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest, New York Times, March 12, 1991, p. B9.

George Ellis, astrophysicist is considered one of the leading theorists in cosmology, and co-authored the book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with physicist Stephen Hawking. Regarding complexity of the laws of our universe, he said: “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.”    George Ellis, The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U. Curi, ed., New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 30.

The eminent astrophysicist Arno Penzias was co-awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovery of a faint microwave background radiation throughout the universe, which lent strong support to the big-bang model of cosmic evolution. However, he admitted:                                                                  “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.”                                                Arno Penzias, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos, Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed., La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 83.

Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe as follows: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”                      Robin Collins “The Evidence for Fine-Tuning” in God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, ed. Neil Manson, New York, New York: Routledge, 2003.

What Charles Darwin Said About the Creator and Designed Laws

Charles Darwin himself conceded in The Origin of Species:

“all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by the Creator”!”  Charles Darwin The Origin of Species, 1900, p. 316.

 Darwin called the peacock the most splendid of living birds. The eye on the tail of the peacock is a thing of awesome beauty, with an intensely blue center surrounded by iridescent concentric colored circles. It is enjoyed as the peacock raises and displays his plumage, and seems to have no purpose but to please the observer.

Darwin writes: “That these ornaments should have been formed through the selection of many successive variations, not one of which was originally intended to produce the ball-and-socket effect, seems as incredible as that one of Raphael’s Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of chance daubs of paint made by a long succession of artists, not one of whom intended at first to draw the human figure.”

Darwin said:“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Charles Darwin, In an 1860 (post ‘Origin of Species’) letter to Asa Gray,
Darwin writes:“I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.”

Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860.

In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin’s death:

“In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the ‘Fertilisation of Orchids’, and upon ‘The Earthworms’, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer.                                                                                                                                He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.””  Duke of Argyll, Good Words, April 1885, p. 244.

Thomas Huxley, often known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his strong advocacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution, was an English biologist. He wrote:                                                                                       “’Creation,’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation.”           Thomas H. Huxley, L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I, 1903, p. 241.