Complex designs require a Designer to produce them. The kind of information the designs contain can only come from an intelligent Agent. This is the Argument from Design. The prequels of this Evidence for God series have extensively discussed the Design Argument.
Evolutionists promote the view that scientists support Evolutionism and that scientists do not believe evidence for design. But this is false. Many eminent scientists accept the Argument from Design.
This article and its prequels/sequels present quotations from a number of scientists who have been convinced by the Argument from Design.
Sir Fred Hoyle
Renowned British astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) was a celebrity of his day, speaking on myriad BBC broadcasts, writing books that popularized science, and even producing numerous science fiction novels which became a BBC series.
For many years Hoyle directed Cambridge’s Institute of Astronomy, which under his leadership became one of the premier institutions for theoretical astrophysics. Hoyle was knighted in 1972 for his contributions to astronomy.
Hoyle was the man who coined the term “Big Bang” when explaining the theory on a popular radio program. He actually used the term derisively, for Hoyle rejected the idea of an instantaneous “Big Bang,” proposing instead the idea of a steady state, or continuous creation. He believed and taught widely that the universe had existed for an infinite past time and would continue infinitely into the future.
Hoyle almost shared the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physics for pioneering research on nuclear reactions in stars. He was a founding researcher in the field of nucleosynthesis studying nuclear reactions in stars that form chemical elements heavier than helium. Indeed those achievements were recognized with the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physics–but shockingly Hoyle himself was not named. He was deliberately passed over in favor of William Fowler, one of Hoyle’s collaborators and co-authors, even though it was widely acknowledged that Hoyle had made the greater contribution and provided the critical insights. It’s thought that political considerations involving his unorthodox views and his previous criticism of a Nobel award prevented him from being a joint recipient of the prize for work that he was deeply involved in.
Despite being an atheist, Hoyle recognized clear signs of intelligent design in the universe. Hoyle wrote,
“Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the 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.”
(Fred Hoyle, The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, Engineering & Science, Nov 1981, pp 8-12.)
“If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter [Earth-based abiogenesis], 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 in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.”
(Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, 1/12/1982.)
“Imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik’s cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling, of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”
(Fred Hoyle, New Scientist, November 1981.)
Hoyle also derided the fundamentals of evolutionism as a completely inadequate explanation for life:
“The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show. The theory seemed to me to run like this: ‘If among the varieties of a species there is one that survives better in the environment than the others, then the variety that survives best is the one that best survives.’ If I had known the word tautology I would have called this a tautology. People with still more bated breath, called it natural selection. I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry.”
(Fred Hoyle, Mathematics of Evolution , 1999, p. 2.)
One of Hoyle’s most famous metaphors about the origin of life communicates the magnitude of the problem for evolutionists:
“That a living organism emerged by chance from a prebiotic soup is about as likely as that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a 747.”
(Marvin Olasky, Monkey Business: The True Story of the Scopes Trial, p 192.)
Famed astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, a near Nobel Prize winner, recognized signs of design in the universe. He implicitly used the Argument from Design to conclude there must be a Creator.
Questions to Ponder
- Do you agree with Hoyle that it is “nonsense of a high order” to believe that the complex materials and intricate operations of a living cells could arise by chance? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with Hoyle that a “superintellect” is behind the origin of the universe? Why or why not?
Share your thoughts on these questions in the comments below. It could encourage or help another reader.
Soli Deo Gloria.
This is the 20th article in the Evidence for God series that discusses the question,
“Is There Evidence for God?”
Read the prequels:
1. Evidence for God – Can You Answer a 6th-Grader?
2. Evidence for God – Design
3. Evidence for God – Experience
4. Evidence for God – Can You Prove God Exists?
5. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Simple
6. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Logical
7. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Biblical
8. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – Old Testament
9. Evidence for God – Design Is Best Argument for God – New Testament
10. Evidence for God – Stephen King & the Argument from Design
11. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz
12. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz Answers 1
13. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz Answers 2
14. Evidence for God – Astronomy Quiz Answers 3
15. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 1 – Ben Franklin
16. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 2 – Isaac Newton
17. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 3 – Johann Kepler
18. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 4 – Robert Boyle
19. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 5 – Albert Einstein
Read the sequel:
21. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 7 – Harold Urey
Subscribe – Don’t miss future blog posts!
Click the sidebar’s “SUBSCRIBE” button to follow the
Bible-Science Guy Blog. You’ll automatically receive
new posts free by email. Click SUBSCRIBE NOW!
©William T. Pelletier, Ph.D.
“contending earnestly for the faith”
“destroying speculations against the knowledge of God”
(Jude 1:3; 2 Cor 10:4)
Wednesday October 30, 2013 A.D.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (Romans 1:18-23)