﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Interview with Lenny Susskind</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interview-with-lenny-susskind/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interview-with-lenny-susskind/</link>
	<description>Serving The Intelligent Design Community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:10:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: geoffrobinson</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interview-with-lenny-susskind/comment-page-1/#comment-17501</link>
		<dc:creator>geoffrobinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/583#comment-17501</guid>
		<description>The fool in his own heart says &quot;there is no God.&quot;

Physics is pointing to God. Actually, it is like a neon Vegas billboard which says &quot;pull off the highway and come here.&quot;

Some people don&#039;t want to believe in God. It has nothing to do with the evidence but, instead, the condition of their own hearts.

Multiple universes? If it gets us out of the God-problem, sure...let&#039;s go with that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fool in his own heart says &#8220;there is no God.&#8221;</p>
<p>Physics is pointing to God. Actually, it is like a neon Vegas billboard which says &#8220;pull off the highway and come here.&#8221;</p>
<p>Some people don&#8217;t want to believe in God. It has nothing to do with the evidence but, instead, the condition of their own hearts.</p>
<p>Multiple universes? If it gets us out of the God-problem, sure&#8230;let&#8217;s go with that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: keiths</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interview-with-lenny-susskind/comment-page-1/#comment-17389</link>
		<dc:creator>keiths</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:42:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/583#comment-17389</guid>
		<description>Josh writes:
&quot;IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m confused. Is this guy bashing ID...or supporting it?&quot;

Susskind does not support ID.  His new book is entitled &quot;The Cosmic Landscape : String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design&quot;.
 
He is a professor of theoretical physics at Stanford.  If he supported ID, you can bet the DI would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Josh writes:<br />
&#8220;IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m confused. Is this guy bashing ID&#8230;or supporting it?&#8221;</p>
<p>Susskind does not support ID.  His new book is entitled &#8220;The Cosmic Landscape : String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design&#8221;.</p>
<p>He is a professor of theoretical physics at Stanford.  If he supported ID, you can bet the DI would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Red Reader</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interview-with-lenny-susskind/comment-page-1/#comment-17299</link>
		<dc:creator>Red Reader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2005 04:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/583#comment-17299</guid>
		<description>&quot;William Dembski...has now latched on to the string theory controversy as evidence that mainstream science is no better than ID.&quot;

And he is right.

In the 19th-20th centuries, otherwise rational men begain to substitute fantasy for real data (best illustrated by my favorite Fr. Coyne&#039;s amazing quote: &quot;two hydrogen atoms meet in the early universe.... And so they wander through the universe until they finally do combine....and so on, until we have...eventually...the human brain.&quot;  http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01063


From Amanda Gefter&#039;s interview with Leonard Susskind, the following are poster examples of &quot;wishful thinking&quot;, &quot;magical thinking&quot;, &quot;insanity&quot;:
(Notice how &quot;supposition&quot; just sort of becomes &quot;fact&quot;.)

&quot;The bottom line is that we no longer have any good reason to believe that our tiny patch of universe is representative of the whole thing.&quot;
  Theory becomes fact that is then woven into new theory that becomes fact.

&quot;At first, string theorists thought there were about a million solutions. ...I used to go around asking my mathematician friends: are you sure itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s only a million?&quot;
  He really wants there to be infinite solutions because then accidental life is probable.  (Tacit admission that life as we know it ISN&#039;T accidental in the the only universe we know.)

&quot;Why should we presume that all life is like us - carbon-based, needs water, and so forth?&quot;  
  Because this is all the data we actually have.  

&quot;If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would lose all of its force.&quot;
  The burning wish: that the universe ISN&#039;T fine tuned for life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;William Dembski&#8230;has now latched on to the string theory controversy as evidence that mainstream science is no better than ID.&#8221;</p>
<p>And he is right.</p>
<p>In the 19th-20th centuries, otherwise rational men begain to substitute fantasy for real data (best illustrated by my favorite Fr. Coyne&#8217;s amazing quote: &#8220;two hydrogen atoms meet in the early universe&#8230;. And so they wander through the universe until they finally do combine&#8230;.and so on, until we have&#8230;eventually&#8230;the human brain.&#8221;  <a href="http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01063" rel="nofollow">http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi.....blet-01063</a></p>
<p>From Amanda Gefter&#8217;s interview with Leonard Susskind, the following are poster examples of &#8220;wishful thinking&#8221;, &#8220;magical thinking&#8221;, &#8220;insanity&#8221;:<br />
(Notice how &#8220;supposition&#8221; just sort of becomes &#8220;fact&#8221;.)</p>
<p>&#8220;The bottom line is that we no longer have any good reason to believe that our tiny patch of universe is representative of the whole thing.&#8221;<br />
  Theory becomes fact that is then woven into new theory that becomes fact.</p>
<p>&#8220;At first, string theorists thought there were about a million solutions. &#8230;I used to go around asking my mathematician friends: are you sure itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s only a million?&#8221;<br />
  He really wants there to be infinite solutions because then accidental life is probable.  (Tacit admission that life as we know it ISN&#8217;T accidental in the the only universe we know.)</p>
<p>&#8220;Why should we presume that all life is like us &#8211; carbon-based, needs water, and so forth?&#8221;<br />
  Because this is all the data we actually have.  </p>
<p>&#8220;If life could exist without galaxies, the argument that the cosmological constant seems improbably fine-tuned for life would lose all of its force.&#8221;<br />
  The burning wish: that the universe ISN&#8217;T fine tuned for life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh Bozeman</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interview-with-lenny-susskind/comment-page-1/#comment-17295</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh Bozeman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/583#comment-17295</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t understand many of the terms used here or the detailed science, so I&#039;m confused.  Is this guy bashing ID (as it seemed to me- he says that the one idea seems as faith based as ID!), or supporting it?  I saw this on a few other similar sites (similar to UD), so I&#039;m not sure what he&#039;s saying or where his support is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand many of the terms used here or the detailed science, so I&#8217;m confused.  Is this guy bashing ID (as it seemed to me- he says that the one idea seems as faith based as ID!), or supporting it?  I saw this on a few other similar sites (similar to UD), so I&#8217;m not sure what he&#8217;s saying or where his support is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Not Even Wrong &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Susskind Interview at New Scientist</title>
		<link>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interview-with-lenny-susskind/comment-page-1/#comment-17214</link>
		<dc:creator>Not Even Wrong &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Susskind Interview at New Scientist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:57:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/583#comment-17214</guid>
		<description>[...] Update: Ken Silber writes in to point out that William Dembski, one of the most prominent Intelligent Design ideologues, has now latched on to the string theory controversy as evidence that mainstream science is no better than ID. Dembski has both comments on Susskind and comments on David Gross&#8217;s admission that string theory is in trouble. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Update: Ken Silber writes in to point out that William Dembski, one of the most prominent Intelligent Design ideologues, has now latched on to the string theory controversy as evidence that mainstream science is no better than ID. Dembski has both comments on Susskind and comments on David Gross&#8217;s admission that string theory is in trouble. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

