Leonard Susskind, eh?
"Scientists in glass houses, throwing stones
New Scientist magazine interviews Leonard Susskind, professor of theoretical physics at Stanford:
"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?"
"I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now, we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."
One of the reasons that I think so little of Darwin's more outspoken defenders is that most of them are not genuine scientists, they are at best third-rate academics. I do not subscribe to either ID or evolutionary theory, (being firmly agnostic on the question of both origins and methods*), but I have to say that the behavior of the evolutionists over the past few years has me leaning towards the ID camp, mostly because they don't behave as if they have something to hide."
The above? Nope, not my words. It is from Vox Popoli. Nice to know I am not the only one, especially hearing it from an "agnostic on the question of both origins and methods" who has no agenda other than stating what seems obvious. I am on the side of those who "...don't behave as if they have something to hide."
New Scientist magazine interviews Leonard Susskind, professor of theoretical physics at Stanford:
"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?"
"I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now, we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."
One of the reasons that I think so little of Darwin's more outspoken defenders is that most of them are not genuine scientists, they are at best third-rate academics. I do not subscribe to either ID or evolutionary theory, (being firmly agnostic on the question of both origins and methods*), but I have to say that the behavior of the evolutionists over the past few years has me leaning towards the ID camp, mostly because they don't behave as if they have something to hide."
The above? Nope, not my words. It is from Vox Popoli. Nice to know I am not the only one, especially hearing it from an "agnostic on the question of both origins and methods" who has no agenda other than stating what seems obvious. I am on the side of those who "...don't behave as if they have something to hide."