As an astronomer, I have always been intrigued by some of the astonishing details of the physical world, to say nothing of the intricacy and complexity of the biological domain. To me, looking out at the universe through the eyes of faith, these data have seemed to be impressive evidences of design and purpose. I propose to sketch briefly the modern scientific scenario of the creation of the universe and the origin of the elements, pointing out at least two wonderful episodes where it appears, on the face of it, that a designing hand has been at work. Yet science today eschews any hint of design or purpose in its description of the world. That it is unfashionable in scientific explanations today even to hint at purpose or design is made clear repeatedly, and not just in such avowedly atheistic polemics as exemplified by Dawkins' subtitle.
Reductionism is the name of the game.
A few years ago Science magazine carried a report on the toxins of certain cone shells, which I happened to notice because my wife and I are avid shell collectors. The response shows clearly the current philosophical orthodoxy about the non-directed nature of evolution. It also typifies the enormous change of view that has occurred over the past century with respect to the wonders of the biological world. What is now seen as the zigzag, largely accidental path to amazing organisms with astonishing adaptations was in earlier times routinely interpreted as the design of an intelligent Creator. Ernst Mayr, a leading evolutionist who has written very clearly on the modern philosophy of evolution, remarks that there are different types of end-directed processes.