what well-known scientists accept intelligent design?

Answer 1

Dr. Stephen Hawking is probably the best-known scientific theist; he says things are too complex for there not to have been a Creator that designed it all. That's as big of an endorsement as you'll ever find IN the pulpit, let alone out of it.

The problem in finding those willing to endorse it "on the record" derives from the fact that the money supporting science no longer comes from the church, but from so-called secular institutions (usually those promoting the faith of atheism): get caught admitting ID and your funding gets cut off and you're unable to get anything published in any of the "credible" journals.

So, it's a balancing act. Nobody is going to go on the record, for risk of being branded a quack and losing all the credential they worked so hard to attain; one look at what happened to the guys over at "answersingenesis" will show that such concerns are well-founded -- especially in light of the ruling (by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, in a 139-page opinion effectively establishing State-sponsored faith and religion) issued in violation of the First Amendment .

And I disagree with the notion that the tendency of a person to believe in a particular point of view cannot be reasonably determined merely because that person is dead.

The list by AirborneSaint (Agassiz, Boyle, Brewster, Buckland, Copernicus, Cuvier, Dalton, Euler, Faraday, Galileo, Herschel, Kelvin, Kepler, Leibnitz, Linnaeus, Maxwell, Maunder, Mendel, Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Ramsay, Ray, Steno, Virchow, Woodward) is often cited, and strictly in this regard it seems relatively accurate.

Personally, I think Einstein should be added to that list.

In other words, I've researched the beliefs of many, if not most, of those scientists and found they ... each to his own degree ... held belief in some sort of ID. It is important to note that this belief DID NOT translate to either a "personal belief in God" or acceptance of the Christian faith.

For some, belief in ID was an expression of what we would later consider Darwinian ideology: the notion that anomalies for which there was no survival purpose were selected naturally against, and nature therefore evinced a purposeful design.

If you can get access to some of the writings (or copies thereof) of these scientists -- especially personal journals, etc. -- you'll be shocked. Their curiosities were not limited to the stale stuff you get taught about them in elementary school; it's unfortunate we deprive our youth of such knowledge in the interest of sterilizing both history and science.

In order for your research to be meaningful, of course, you'll have to consider each statement in its rightful context -- which can be a laborious (but exceedingly richly rewarding) undertaking.

Just imagine if Pasteuer's dishes had all been sterile! We need the imaginary funk -- and I think a vital part of scientific discovery is learning to harness the power of the imagination; else, everything is mere rote.

Unfortunately, the tendency today is to push people into either of two categories: (1) the bland scientist, devoid of personality has a flat affect, no imagination, no sense of adventure, no fun; (2) the artist imagines only the preposterous, absurd and ridiculous; is charming and gay and affable, is undisciplined and curious. Society is unprepared to welcome anyone combining those qualities into a being that isn't constrained by the definitive extremes.

Answer 2

There are a very few. The historic ones don't count, as they had no alternative theory available
and would have been persecuted by the church if
they ever denied what their religious writings seemed to say.

The claims of intelligent design are without any
scientific substance. "Irreducible complexity" has
been claimed as an indication of intelligent design.
Unfortunately the examples given of supposedly
irreducible complexity have turned out not to be
irreducible after all. Furthermore if they were
really irreducible they would be examples of poor
design, not intelligent design. Any system that
breaks down as soon as one piece breaks or is
removed is badly designed. Good designs have
failsafes built into them.

Try reading the book "Unintelligent Design" by
Mark Perakh.

Answer 3

There aren't a lot of well-known scientists to begin with. I think a couple (literally, maybe two) true scientists have expressed some support for it, but I recall one of them said they were somehow tricked into saying something that sounded supportive of the idea.

BTW, the list given by AirborneSaint is BS. Everyone on that list is dead and they were never exposed to what people are calling Intelligent Design. Ridiculous.

Answer 4

At present, none, because "intelligent design" as a theory has no predictive power. In order for a theory to be able to predict anything, it must be refutable, and there is no conceivable way to disprove the idea that God runs the show. The only reason for taking interest in a theory is that it can predict something. The theory of evolution can be used to make predictions, some of which are of great economic importance. If evolution comes up with a wrong answer, the theory will be modified as needed to fit the new data.
-- Robert A. Saunders, Lake Stevens, WA.

Answer 5

Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland Cuvier
Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler

Answer 6

'well-known scientists' that means you need a group of scientists. these i do not know but i need a simple explanation on what you mean by intelligent design

Answer 7

john McMurtrey...
US5....."ACOUSTIC SPOTLIGHT" CAN TARGET ONE PERSON IN CROWD

THIS IS THE TEXT PORTION ONLY OF THE ORIGINAL WEB PAGE
POSTED BY F. JOSEPH POMPEII, MIT MEDIA LAB. The image
below, posted by Eleanor White, describes nearly identical
techology being commerically developed by American
Technologies Corp., San Diego CA, (as of March 22, 2000):





The ORIGINAL LINK FOR THIS PAGE (As of March 22, 2000):
http://sound.media.mit.edu/~pompei/spotlight/

Machine Listening Group Digital Life Consortium

A beam of light can be controlled in many ways - it can be
aimed at one person in a crowd, spread to fill a room, or
projected to create rich, distant imagery.

We can now do these very same things with sound.

To my friends in the UK:

Thanks to those who have contacted me regarding the BBC piece;
I'm happy it was so well received. I recently had a very
polite British visitor, who seemed to enjoy the demonstration
a great deal... click the photo to see who it was.

The Audio SpotlightTM, invented and developed at the MIT Media
Lab, is a device which uses subtle nonlinear properties of the
air to create an extremely narrow Sound BeamTM. This beam of
sound behaves just like a beam of light - 'shining' it at a
specific listener allows only that person to hear it, and
projecting it against a surface creates an acoustic 'image' at
the point of reflection. It is the first device that provides
total control over both the location and distribution of high
quality sound, something impossible to achieve with
traditional loudspeakers.

The circular transducer is very thin, and can be constructed
in a variety of sizes and configurations as needed. A typical
Audio Spotlight transducer has an active area of approximately
1 foot diameter, and, depending on size and frequency content,
projects an approximately three-degree wide beam of sound
audible to well over 100 meters. Harmonic distortion has been
reduced to close to that of a traditional loudspeaker, sound
level is quite appreciable (on the order of 80-90dBA) at
several meters, and frequency response, depending on size,
extends down to a few hundred Hertz, and upwards beyond the
range of hearing. Continued research is being conducted on all
facets of the technology.

While still under development, we are testing applications of
the device in collaboration with several of our Media Lab
Sponsors in preparation for eventual commercial release.

Put sound wherever you want it.TM

F. Joseph Pompei [e-mail]

Answer 8

Whichever professional 'expert' the creationist lobby is paying to give testimony at the show trials.

People who lived before Darwin don't count, as they had no alternative to creationism aside from being burned at the stake.

Answer 9

As scientific method? None.

As a personal philophy? Many?

Answer 10

Wheel.