With the DVD release of Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" in the United Kingdom this month, a UK radio station invited world-renowned Oxford Chemist, and outspoken humanist Peter Atkins to debate Discovery Institute Fellow and Cambridge Ph.D Stephen Meyer, author of the best-selling "Signature in the Cell."
The debate was passionate, cordial and at times light-hearted. Both Atkins and Meyer are articulate spokesmen for their respective views.
Given the massive amounts of ignorance and misinformation circulating on all sides of the ID vs. Neo-Darwinian controversy, such a debate is extremely helpful in clearing up exactly what proponents of each side actually claim.
Atkins does a good job of stating the reasoning behind methodolical naturalism in science, but is quite smug and condescending toward Meyer's position.
Meyer on the other hand does a good job showing exactly why ID is not creationism-in-a-cheap-tuxedo and why the principles upon which his research is based are precisely those upon which Darwin based his own theory of natural selection. However, Meyer at times resorts to verbal steamrolling rather than specific answers to specific objections by Atkins.
No matter what one's thoughts on ID or Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, this debate should be listened to in its entirety. The attitude of dismissal and empty rhetoric has no place in ANY scientific/philosophical debate...yet it seems the dominant approach by many on this particular issue of Intelligent Design.
The debate can be heard in its entirety HERE. (Approx. 1 hr. in length)
Comments
Thanks for letting us know about this. I plan on having popcorn while I listen.
Link to Stephen Meyer's article that discusses "Symmetrical Order" and clearly defeats Peter Atkins' position that "Materialism" is the only way to judge the validity of scientific reasoning: "www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm" If you take the time to read it you will be glad you did, no matter which side of this issue you are on. It is authoritative, well-written and easy to understand.
The question of investing the time to read and absorb and comment on a 600+ page book may be influenced by the credibility of the author. I agree its better to read it and show why its wrong, but Meyer's reputation isn't very good. However, rather devastating reviews, particularly of Meyer's mangling of information, the term and the theory are ready available, and should cause any who think his points well taken to think again. For example the article "Stephen Meyers Bogus Information Theory" by Jeffery Shallit dismantles Meyer and the bogus "specified complexity" notions of Dempski's. (His follow up article demonstrates rank dishonesty in the book).
I understand how attractive it must be the theists to think there is scientific support for their beliefs, but this yearning is akin to sin, a yielding to wrong. No matter how you want to slice it none of the ID arguments amount to anything but assertion of God of the Gaps.
Bob Diamond R.Ph says:
"Link to Stephen Meyer's article that discusses "Symmetrical Order" and clearly defeats Peter Atkins' position that "Materialism" is the only way to judge the validity of scientific reasoning: "www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm" If you take the time to read it you will be glad you did, no matter which side of this issue you are on. It is authoritative, well-written and easy to understand."
Really? Its a 1996 rehash of the same wrong ideas we've seen floating around on creationist sites for year.
Sometimes, there's no substitute for knowing what you're talking about and being honest.
My biggest objection to theism is that it isn't harmless. It corrupts the mind by attaching existential emotion to critical thinking. When you desperately want the truth to be X but facts are Y, its a bad for clear thinking.
"My biggest objection to theism is that it isn't harmless. It corrupts the mind by attaching existential emotion to critical thinking. When you desperately want the truth to be X but facts are Y, its a bad for clear thinking."
This might be believable if it weren't for people like Alvin Plantinga, Henry Schaefer, Francis Collins, James Clerk Maxwell, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendell...etc...etc...
Just say you don't believe theism; don't try to make the silly argument that it inhibits clear or rational thinking. It makes you lose credibility in that very department when you do so.
Precisely, James-Michael. Being a theist does not automatically make one a creationist (and after the absurdities of the Dover case, I'm not about to be convinced that ID is anything but "creationism in a cheap tuxedo"). I believe in a deity; do I believe he/she/it intervenes or makes jumps or did more than kick-start it all with the Big Bang? Not on your nelly.
JM writes:"This might be believable if it weren't for people like Alvin Plantinga, Henry Schaefer, Francis Collins, James Clerk Maxwell, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendell...etc...etc.."
Leaving aside Plantinga and perhaps Shaefer, I didn't say that theism made it impossible to distinguish between reasoned factual thinking and faith. It seems, from experience, not an easy task for the majority, including very brilliant people. Each case is, of course different.
"Just say you don't believe theism; don't try to make the silly argument that it inhibits clear or rational thinking. It makes you lose credibility in that very department when you do so."
I don't see why its silly. It adds an additional burden for what appears to be a very substantial, if not majority, of people.
I know theists who regard their faith as just that: faith... not fact which science hasn't been able to confirm.
Louise:
I guess I didn't qualify my statement enough. First, by "creationist" I mean someone who asserts that creation by a deity as described in scripture is literally and scientifically supported. I don't mean people who, as a matter of faith think that the deity they believe in by faith somehow initiated what we observe.
What I was referring to is the persistent pull of those who have a rationalist bent but who are so strongly attached to believing in the object of their faith as a concrete entity that they distort the very methods, tools and principles of disciplines known to produce reliable fact in order to produce desired results. It happens so often that its impossible not to notice. ID is the product of this. It really is, to me, sad to see very bright people diverted from constructive use of their talents this way.
If such exceptional, trained, minds have this difficulty how much more do those not trained in scientific thinking and method have in making distinction.
Let's see, JMS... Alvin Plantinga is a theologian, not a scientist; Chemist Henry Schaefer's famous 2008 lecture, 'Big Bang, Stephen Hawking and God', not only promoted ID, but "also implied the futility of belief systems other than Christianity as the way to God" (ref: Wikipedia), very scientific, that; geneticist Francis Collins rejects ID (ref: ibid) in favor of a somewhat convoluted deistic idea of his own; 19th century physicist/mathematician James Clerk Maxwell was a devout Christian but so what? You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution; 19th century priest Gregor Mendel's contribution to genetics provided information on the mechanics of evolution, not ID; 17th & 18th century scientist Isaac Newton also practised alchemy and wasted years looking for secret codes in the Bible. So what? His greatness lies in his contributions to science; not in his personal and sometimes ludicrous other beliefs. Whether or not they inhibited clear, rational thought is beside the point.
(continued) They didn't aid it either. They were, in fact, irrelevant to it.
"What I was referring to is the persistent pull of those who have a rationalist bent but who are so strongly attached to believing in the object of their faith as a concrete entity that they distort the very methods, tools and principles of disciplines known to produce reliable fact in order to produce desired results. It happens so often that its impossible not to notice. ID is the product of this."
Al C, how is ID a product of this when rejects Creationism, states nothing at all about any religious doctrine or Scripture, and applies the very same type of reasoning that led Darwin to his theory in the first place? It's clear that you did not listen to the debate or that you are remaining intentionally disingenuous in order to make people conflate ID with religion or Creationism.
Hugh,
I agree, it is irrelevant. That is why I brought up the names of brilliant critical thinkers to show that Al C's charge that theism inhibits rational thinking is a bogus one.
And Alvin Plantinga is a highly distinguished Philosopher, not a theologian. Perhaps you're mistaken him for the theologian Cornelius Plantinga?
Al: "No matter how you want to slice it none of the ID arguments amount to anything but assertion of God of the Gaps."
Not true. They also like to use Arguments from Ignorance and Appeals to Emotion.
Reckoner, I reckon you should read more actual ID and less caricatures of it. Let's leave the strawman tactics for the Bill Mahers and Richard Dawkinses of the world, shall we?
Argument to best inference is not "God of the gaps", "emotion" or "ignorance." This is why it's so successful in every other branch of inquiry in which it is used.
"Argument to best inference is not "God of the gaps", "emotion" or "ignorance." "
Why is attributing life's origin to an intelligent designer the "best inference?" The better inference it would seem would be to say, "we don't know," or "we're working on it," would it not? Why just pluck the idea of a creator out of midair? How's that logical? Five hundred plus years ago or so, we've ascertained that the earth is not at the center of the solar system or universe and that the world is not flat. A hundred and fifty years ago we ascertained that all life is connected and has gradually evolved through a process of patience called evolution. Give us a couple hundred more years, just think what we'll know! Life's origin may be next.
Matt,
Listen to the debate. Read Meyer's book. The argument is NOT "God did it". That is an anti-ID caricture that opponents like to drum up. But it's no more representative of ID than "We evolved from Monkeys" is representative of Neo-Darwinian theory (which Neo-Darwininans rightly chide Creationists for putting forth!).
The argument from inference is that working codes of digital information are always the product of intelligence. If the working digital code contained within DNA is not the product of intelligence then it is THE ONLY example in all the universe of such. Therefore, to argue that it is illegitimate to posit an intelligent origin of the genetic code is to deny a totally valid line of inquiry.
Al,
You stated: "My biggest objection to theism is that it isn't harmless. It corrupts the mind by attaching existential emotion to critical thinking. When you desperately want the truth to be X but facts are Y, its a bad for clear thinking." I find it very interesting that atheists and materialists make the claim that only theists attach emotion to their belief systems, thus impeding their critical thinking skills." I find that atheists and materialists also often desperately want the facts to be X when they are Y, and are no less emotionally attached to their beliefs than your average theist.
JM, while I agree that ID is not identical to creationism in its crudest forms such as YEC, I believe it is the pretense, which you apparently accept, that the source of intelligence supposedly points to, is anything but a deity. Of course, they can't admit that or the ball game is over.
What term would you ascribe to an X such that it creates, at a minimum life on earth, if not the universe, and is undetectable by observation. Its like saying my telephone bill is not $50, its really $25+$25. Virtually all ID proponents are theists. So I don't think I'm being disingenuous, I think they are.
Yes, I didn't watch the video having read an account of it which confirmed my suspicion that Meyer was slicker than Atkins. I'm dubious about such verbal debates because the personality and dynamic of the individuals interfere with the discussion. I don't see why it matters.
James-Michael says:
And Alvin Plantinga is a highly distinguished Philosopher.
Well, there we have it. He is best known for attempting to justify theism with philosophy. Not, according to my reading, very successfully.
But isn't that more to the point? Brilliant minds trying every which way to provide scientific, or even philosophical support to notions which simply don't fit. Faith is faith. Its not philosophy or science.
James-Michael says:
"The argument is NOT "God did it". That is an anti-ID caricture that opponents like to drum up. But it's no more representative of ID than "We evolved from Monkeys" is representative of Neo-Darwinian theory."
That's their story. I don't believe they believe it.
"The argument from inference is that working codes of digital information are always the product of intelligence."
When it is digital codes which are always created by the only intelligence we know of..us.
" If the working digital code contained within DNA is not the product of intelligence "
But that's already been demonstrated to be bogus. DNA isn't information. It has properties sufficiently similar to information that its called that as analogy. Nor is it digital, nor is it code.
" to argue that it is illegitimate to posit an intelligent origin of the genetic code is to deny a totally valid line of inquiry."
Its illegitimate because the basis is wrong.
For those interested in a discussion of the information theory aspect of this issue one might see " Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and
Dembski's \Complex Speci¯ed Information" By Shallit and Elsberry. It is certainly more informative that a debate video. (Its also pretty tough reading.) They take Meyer's principle source Dembski apart.
Dembski, by the way is clear who he thinks the designer is. Just a slip of the tongue?
Amanda H. says:
"I find that atheists and materialists also often desperately want the facts to be X when they are Y, and are no less emotionally attached to their beliefs than your average theist."
I never claimed that anyone is superhuman or beyond bias. But most atheists and certainly scientists (materialists?) are devoted to the elimination, to the degree possible, of such biases. If you identify the result of such abandonment of fact it will be more readily corrected. As to the relative incidence, the preponderance of truly creationist web-sites with all sorts of irrational cant is hard to miss. I'd be interested to hear your list of irrational propositions held by materialists. I don't doubt there's a lot of poor thinking floating about.
Hugh Kramer, L.A. Atheism Examiner says:
"(continued) They didn't aid it either. They were, in fact, irrelevant to it."
By your own description Newton wasted much time trying to find codes in the Bible. Do you really think that his religious attachments had nothing to do with that? Of course, his historic setting preceded modern scientific thought.
"What term would you ascribe to an X such that it creates, at a minimum life on earth, if not the universe, and is undetectable by observation."
Francis Crick went with Directed Panspermia. Agnostic ID proponents go with "we don't know yet, let's keep researching and discovering." Any of those answers are acceptable, as is the hypothesis that it was a deity. Science isn't impeded by any of them...despite the dire rhetoric of ID opponents to the contrary.
Let me be clear as to my position. I do not think that any sort of theism necessarily results in harm to the rational process. It is in the attempt to make commitment faith an act of reason that it crops up.
Secondarily, it is very difficult for people to keep that separate. If you start teaching children from the time they can barely walk all sorts of stories, told in concrete form, about the way the world is, and these stories aren't carefully pruned away as fairy tales are, we have adults thinking the stories are literally and concretely true. When they learn that they don't match the facts, conflict results which can be damaging.
And Al C,
You realize that reading a recap of something from a 2nd-hand perspective is a poor substitute for actual intellectual engagement, right? Meyer wasn't "slick"; he made valid points (as did Atkins at times).
I see a reoccurring theme among anti-ID'ers when it comes to not actually reading, listening to or attempting to accurately portray the arguments of ID proponents...which is exactly what so many of them rail against Creationists for doing. Oh the irony...
"The argument from inference is that working codes of digital information are always the product of intelligence."
Nucleic acid is not digital. It's a large organic, biological molecule which tells a cell how to make proteins. It's not much of a code, really, either. Sets of base pairs in DNA dictate how the molecule will replicate itself, transcribe itself into RNA, and translate itself into proteins, with the help of enzymes. That's just biology at work.
"If the working digital code contained within DNA is not the product of intelligence then it is THE ONLY example in all the universe of such."
Testable hypotheses have been proposed regarding the origins of DNA. An intelligent designer is not testable, and not scientific. Further, to compare the creation of mechanical digital codes by human beings to a creation of a biological molecule by some sort of unknown supernatural "intelligence" is flawed. A more logical comparison would be comparing this creation of DNA with some other creation that we definitively know was created by an unknown supernatural intelligence. Make this comparison. Then your logic would make sense.
"The argument is NOT "God did it"."
I never said God did it (but I did say creator; I misspoke, I should have said intelligent designer). And you're right, your argument is not that God did it. It's that "intelligence" did it. Intelligence that is non-human. "Intelligence" had to do it. Why? Because only intelligent humans have been known to have created digital codes. Let me then summarize this line of thinking, DNA must have been created by a non-human intelligent designer, because, in my life experience, only intelligent humans have created things this complex. Again, coming full circle, I'll ask, how is this logical??
I don't consider Wikipedia to be a scientific or 100%-reliable source of information, but it's interesting to note that on Wikipedia's entry for "Signature in the Cell," it lists the book's genre as "religion."
(On the other hand, I do consider Wikipedia to be a more credible scientific source of information than Meyer's book.)
I haven't read every comment on here, so if I am repeating, I apologize.
ID is not science. No matter how it is dressed up to be science, it is not...a sheep in wolf's clothing, one could say. It has supernatural claims -- whereas science is based upon observations from nature. When someone (or a group of people, a.k.a. a religion) claims that the universe was created by an "intellegent designer"(a.k.a. a god) this would be considered an unfalsifiable claim. This is not what is done in science. But it is done in religion.
Anyone may falsify the Theory of Evolution if they should so care to, and the way the academic world works, they would certainly jump on this so as to further their personal career. The fact that this has not been done in 200 years speaks volumes to me. The fact that ID has been dismissed immediately (after scrutinization, of course) in the scientific community is also very noticeable.
ID is very obviously religion poorly disguised as science.
Seawolf,
I'm afraid you're providing a perfect example of what I've been talking about--someone opposing ID by putting forth a strawman argument and then triumphantly demolishing it. Your summary of ID is on par with Kent Hovind's summary of evolution.
Matt, it's not about "complexity"...this is been addressed ad infinitum by ID proponents. It's about complex specified information. The ONLY source of that in the known universe is intelligence (human or animal). Thus, when we observe it in nature it is perfectly acceptable to posit an intelligent source and pursue that line of research. All the religious and philosophical implications are a totally separate issue that ID opponents (and unfortunately some who are trying to use ID to push their religious agendas) keep throwing in the mix in order to muddy the waters and skew public (and judicial) opinion.
"The ONLY source of that in the known universe is intelligence (human or animal). Thus, when we observe it in nature it is perfectly acceptable to posit an intelligent source and pursue that line of research."
You have drawn an incorrect conclusion here. The first statement is correct, the second is not. To the supporters of ID, including yourself, yes, of course, it is perfectly acceptable to posit an intelligent source and pursue that line of research. To the scientific community, it's obvious that this line of thinking is illogical and a violation of the scientific method. The fact that it is difficult for some to even comprehend why this is illogical or unscientific is itself troubling and reflects poorly on the state of science in this country. Further, there are times when ID proponents don't even care to comprehend why this is illogical or unscientific. This is even more troubling and reflective.
In response to:
"What term would you ascribe to an X such that it creates, at a minimum life on earth, if not the universe, and is undetectable by observation."
James-Michael says:
"Francis Crick went with Directed Panspermia. Agnostic ID proponents go with "we don't know yet, let's keep researching and discovering."
I don't think this is a valid answer. First, Crick later withdrew that notion.
Secondly, my description of X fits most people's definition of a deity. That you hypothesize the "agnostic ID propnents" would suggest the description points to an unknown is more than a bit of a stretch. And, by the way, how many truly agnostic (presuming this means someone without a formed belief in a deity) ID proponents do you think there really are? I would guess hardly any.
Out of curiosity, what would you define as a deity and how would you differentiate it from a the "unknown" of ID.
James Michael writes:
"Matt, it's not about "complexity"...this is been addressed ad infinitum by ID proponents. It's about complex specified information." Except that this concept is not well defined. Information theory specialist Shallit writes:" Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition [of this] nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations."
"The ONLY source of that in the known universe is intelligence (human or animal)." How do you say that if it isn't at all clear or certain what "that" is or if it exists?
"Thus, when we observe it in nature it is perfectly acceptable to posit an intelligent source and pursue that line of research."
Its acceptable to posit and pursue anything, but to call it science is another matter.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!