For example, Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind, who discovered string theory, writes that most of the universe is “hopelessly hostile to life and uninhabitable. But here and there some small pockets happen, by chance, to be more conducive to life, and that’s where life forms.”
For Susskind, this rules out any possibility of intelligent design, because he assumes that the designer would have chosen to create a universe full of life everywhere, rather than one as hostile to life as the one we observe. Because the universe he perceives does not match the universe he thinks a designer would make, he rejects design.
Interesting. So why aren't the evolutionists calumniated by their scientific brethren for making the kind of pronouncements they're always attributing only to the intelligent-design proponents?
Perhaps more alarming for the Darwinists who rushed it into print, Intelligent Thought lacks the originality and creativity needed to invigorate an argument for Darwinism. Instead of illuminating “the real science of evolution,” these sixteen prominent thinkers reveal their philosophical biases against design.
Change the prepositional phrase to by design and watch the fulminations erupt.
He “assumes the designer would have chosen...”. What
monumental arrogance. God said, “As far as the heavens are above the earth, so are My thoughts above your thoughts.”
I think there’s a confusion here between the idea of a universe with physical laws designed to accommodate, or even generate, life, and a designer who intervenes in the universe as we know it to cause life to come into being.
These are very different notions, but one is as likely as the other to be under discussion when Intelligent Design is mentioned.