I think a lot of young people give up on design in the universe because they 1) don’t know the evidence for design and 2) don’t want to be considered to be stupid when confronted with intelligent atheists. For those people, it can be useful to point them to smart people who have worked through the evidence for design, and concluded that the universe (and life) is the product of design.

Here’s the story from Evolution News:

Earlier this week, John West reported on a major new exhibition on faith and science in Washington, DC, tackling the question of whether the Bible impeded or inspired the rise of modern science. (Judging from the historical record, “inspired” is clearly the correct answer.) In the article, he mentioned another Nobel Prize-winning scientist who endorsed the idea of an intelligent design behind the universe, using that phrase explicitly. This was news to me. He is physicist Arthur Holly Compton — see the slide above, which Dr. West shared from the exhibition.

Compton’s remark was, “The chance of a world such as ours occurring without intelligent design becomes more and more remote as we learn of its wonders.” Interesting. He said that in 1940.

[…]Compton joins fellow Nobel Prize-winning physicists Charles Townes (UC Berkeley) and Brian Josephson (Cambridge University) who have likewise come out for ID as a legitimate interpretation of the scientific evidence. (Townes passed away in 2015.) To those names you could add two more, Sir John B. Gurdon (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine) and Gerhard Ertl (Nobel Prize in Chemistry) who, along with Dr. Josephson, endorsed the Discovery Institute Press book by chemist and ID proponent Marcos Eberlin, Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose (2019).

In case you’re wondering what intelligent design is, this simple article is pretty good:

Intelligent design — often called “ID” — is a scientific theory which holds that some features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that intelligent design can be inferred by finding in nature the type of information and complexity which in our experience arises from an intelligent cause.

Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution contend that the information in life arose via blind, mechanistic processes that show no scientific evidence of guidance by intelligent design. ID proponents contend that the information in life does not appear to have an unguided origin, but arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using the standard methods of science. But ID theorists say that when we use the scientific method to explore nature, the evidence points away from blind material causes, and reveals intelligent design.

The cell confirms our expectations from design. Our DNA contains incredible amounts of encoded information. Living cells transform this encoded chemical message into machines which are engineered to perform necessary biochemical functions. The conversion of DNA into protein relies upon a software-like system of commands and biochemical codes.  This is an information processing system which Bill Gates has described as “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

This short video is a good introduction for those who prefer to watch rather than read:

By the way, about that conversation with Josephson. I was walking in the hall with him, and discussing intelligent design. He said “it’s easy to explain complexes sequences that conform to a pattern. I could write a program that would generate the first 100 prime numbers in 3 lines of code.” I told him that I was a software engineer, and that I was familiar with what it takes to “write a simple program”. I said that he would need computer hardware, firmware, an operating system, a compiler, and something to run the program. “And that’s where you’re smuggling in your specified complexity”, I said. I don’t remember what he said, but I’m delighted that he came around eventually.

I have a friend who is interested in being a police officer, and in a blue state. I have a real concern about working in blue states, especially for a union, and especially when your boss is not going to be some STEM engineer, but just some government worker. So far, my friend is persisting in his plan, but just in case this helps other people, I am posting about a recent news story to warn others.

This is from Daily Signal:

A Georgia police officer has resigned after he was told by superiors that he could not share his personal religious views on social media.

“If someone somewhere considers an opinion I have—that isn’t a direct quotation from Scripture—to be offensive, then that would be a fireable offense,” Jacob Kersey, the former officer, told The Daily Signal.

Kersey, 19, who began working last May at the Port Wentworth Police Department in a jurisdiction just outside Savannah, says “everything was going well” until the start of the new year.

On Jan. 2, Kersey posted a 20-word message about his view of marriage on Facebook.

“God designed marriage. Marriage refers to Christ and the church,” he wrote, paraphrasing the Apostle Paul’s teaching in the Book of Ephesians. “That’s why there is no such thing as homosexual marriage.”

A Georgia police officer has resigned after he was told by superiors that he could not share his personal religious views on social media.

“If someone somewhere considers an opinion I have—that isn’t a direct quotation from Scripture—to be offensive, then that would be a fireable offense,” Jacob Kersey, the former officer, told The Daily Signal.

Kersey, 19, who began working last May at the Port Wentworth Police Department in a jurisdiction just outside Savannah, says “everything was going well” until the start of the new year.

On Jan. 2, Kersey posted a 20-word message about his view of marriage on Facebook.

“God designed marriage. Marriage refers to Christ and the church,” he wrote, paraphrasing the Apostle Paul’s teaching in the Book of Ephesians. “That’s why there is no such thing as homosexual marriage.”

The next day, Kersey said he received a phone call from his supervisor, who told him that someone had complained about the post and to take it down.

When Kersey refused, the supervisor warned him that failure to delete the Facebook post on marriage could result in his termination.

Kersey said he then was contacted by Lt. Justin Hardy, who  told him that the Port Wentworth Police Department didn’t want to be held liable in a “use of force” situation involving someone in the LGBTQ community. Kersey still refused to delete the post.

The police officer received a phone call later that day from the police department’s Maj. Lee Sherrod, ordering him to come to the office the following morning, Jan. 4, and turn in everything he had that belonged to the city.

[…]He was told that he was “being placed on administrative leave while the city investigated to see if I could keep my job,” Kersey said.

[…]Kersey said Libby told him that his Facebook post on marriage was the “same thing as saying the N-word and ‘F— all those homosexuals.’” Kersey said his captain told him that his free speech “was limited due to my position as … a police officer.”

[…]“Separation of church and state” was the reason given for why he could not post such views, Kersey said.

So, a few thoughts about this. First, it shows the importance of having an alias on social media. I notice a lot of people, mostly men, like to brag about how they are too strong to have an alias. When I talk to these men, what I find is that they often don’t share anything controversial on social media, especially about social issues. Or, that they don’t have high-paying jobs. For those of us who want to be controversial on social media, I recommend an alias. Not only will you be protected from being fired, but you will also not have to waste time defending against people who are offended. I like to play wargames. And we have a saying in wargaming. We say “Always remember to ask yourself if taking this shot is worth revealing your position”. With an alias, you take every shot, because no shot reveals your position. You only ever win, you never lose. And the money you earn from working just piles up in your bank account, in case you do ever need it. Be a hard target.

Second, a lot of women today are backing constraints and controls on conservative men like Kersey. They wave around rainbow-colored signs and chant about tolerance and diversity. I want to say something to these women. Do you understand that marriage-minded men are not liberal men? Liberal men support abortion, which means they think that killing babies is a good way to keep the good times rolling for the selfish adults. This attitude is not marriage-ready. Liberal men want to redefine marriage and support surrogacy, which means they don’t understand that children need their mom AND their Dad. You can’t marry someone who thinks that children are just accessories for adult happiness. So, if young women want to persecute and intimidate men with character, they should not be surprised when they find themselves single and alone in their old age. Liberal men are filth. And you can’t marry them.

Third, and this is for my friend. He has already applied for a few positions and has run into problems with left-wing police departments. My suspicion is that people just do a web search on his social media, and then blacklist him. (And this is what he’s found when he’s got access to the hiring records, he’s on a black list) Nevertheless, he persists in applying. It’s all well and good to think that you can sue people in order to get justice. But a lot of these decisions about hiring are made behind closed doors, so that you can’t sue. It’s just something to think about when you are deciding what to study and where to work. The best job is a job writing code and working from home. Then you don’t have to put up with these people who want to persecute you. You can work around them.