Today’s interview is with Casey Luskin, Research Coordinator for the Discovery Center’s Center for Science and Culture. In this interview Casey talks about his background and interest in Intelligent Design, defining terms (ID, evolution, creationism, Darwinism), common objections to ID as a scientific endeavor, some milestones in the history of the ID movement, the Dover trial, responding to critics who say “ID is dead,” “not science,” and more. This is a good overall introduction to Intelligent Design.
It’s 75 minutes long or so, and very informative.
About Casey:
Casey Luskin is an attorney with graduate degrees in both science and law. He earned his B.S. and M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego. His Law Degree is from the University of San Diego. In his role at Discovery Institute, Mr. Luskin works as Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture. He formerly conducted geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography (1997-2002).
Luskin is also co-founder of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, a non-profit helping students to investigate evolution by starting “IDEA Clubs” on college and high school campuses across the country. For his work with IDEA, the Intelligent Design and Undergraduate Research Center named an award honoring college graduates for excellence in student advocacy of intelligent design (ID) the “Casey Luskin Graduate Award.”
Please download the MP3 file at Brian’s site, along with links to other relevant resources.
Walter Bradley (B.S., Ph.D. University of Texas at Austin) is Distinguished Professor of Engineering at Baylor. He comes to Baylor from Texas A&M University where he helped develop a nationally recognized program in polymeric composite materials. At Texas A&M, he served as director of the Polymer Technology Center for 10 years and as Department Head of Mechanical Engineering, a department of 67 professors that was ranked as high as 12th nationally during his tenure. Bradley has authored over 150 refereed research publications including book chapters, articles in archival journals such as the Journal of Material Science, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Mechanics of Time-Dependent Materials, Journal of Composites Technology and Research, Composite Science and Technology, Journal of Metals, Polymer Engineering and Science, and Journal of Materials Science, and refereed conference proceedings.
Dr. Bradley has secured over $5.0 million in research funding from NSF grants (15 yrs.), AFOSR (10 years), NASA grants (10 years), and DOE (3 years). He has also received research grants or contracts from many Fortune 500 companies, including Alcoa, Dow Chemical, DuPont, 3M, Shell, Exxon, Boeing, and Phillips.
He co-authored The Mystery of Life Origin: Reassessing Current Theories and has written 10 book chapters dealing with various faith science issues, a topic on which he speaks widely.
He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.
Below, I analyze a lecture entitled “Is There Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer?”. Dr. Bradley explains how the progress of science has made the idea of a Creator and Designer of the universe more acceptable than ever before.
1. The correspondence of natural phenomena to mathematical law
All observations of physical phenomena in the universe, such as throwing a ball up in the air, are described by a few simple, elegant mathematical equations.
2. The fine-tuning of physical constants and rations between constants in order to provide a life-permitting universe
Life has certain minimal requirements; long-term stable source of energy, a large number of different chemical elements, an element that can serve as a hub for joining together other elements into compounds, etc.
In order to meet these minimal requirements, the physical constants, (such as the gravitational constant), and the ratios between physical constants, need to be withing a narrow range of values in order to support the minimal requirements for life of any kind.
Slight changes to any of the physical constants, or to the rations between the constants, will result in a universe inhospitable to life.
The range of possible ranges over 70 orders of magnitude.
Although each individual selection of constants and ratios is as unlikely as any other selection, the vast majority of these possibilities do not support the minimal requirements of life of any kind. (In the same way as any hand of 5 cards that is dealt is as likely as any other, but you are overwhelmingly likely NOT to get a royal flush. In our case, a royal flush is a life-permitting universe).
Examples of finely-tuned constants and ratios: (there are more examples in the lecture)
a) The strong force: (the force that binds nucleons (= protons and neutrons) together in nucleus, by means of meson exchange)
if the strong force constant were 2% stronger, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, no hydrogen containing compounds. This is because the single proton in hydrogen would want to stick to something else so badly that there would be no hydrogen left!
if the strong force constant were 5% weaker, there would be no stable stars, few (if any) elements besides hydrogen. This is because you would be able to build up the nuclei of the heavier elements, which contain more than 1 proton.
So, whether you adjust the strong force up or down, you lose stars than can serve as long-term sources of stable energy, or you lose chemical diversity, which is necessary to make beings that can perform the minimal requirements of living beings. (see below)
b) The conversion of beryllium to carbon, and carbon to oxygen
Life requires carbon in order to serve as the hub for complex molecules, but it also requires oxygen in order to create water.
Carbon is like the hub wheel in a tinker toy set: you can bind other elements together to more complicated molecules (e.g. – “carbon-based life), but the bonds are not so tight that they can’t be broken down again later to make something else.
The carbon resonance level is determined by two constants: the strong force and electromagnetic force.
If you mess with these forces even slightly, you either lose the carbon or the oxygen.
3. Fine-tuning to allow a habitable planet
A number of factors must be fine-tuned in order to have a planet that supports life
Initial estimates predicted abundant life in the universe, but revised estimates now predict that life is almost certainly unique in the galaxy, and probably unique in the universe.
Even though there are lots of stars in the universe, the odds are against any of them supporting complex life.
Here are just a few of the minimal requirements for habitability: must be a single star solar system, in order to support stable planetary orbits, the planet must be the right distance from the sun in order to have liquid water at the surface, the planet must sufficient mass in order to retain an atmosphere, etc.
The best non-theistic response to this argument is to postulate a multiverse, but that is very speculative and there is no experimental evidence that supports it.
Evidence #2: The origin of the universe
1. The progress of science has shown that the entire physical universe came into being out of nothing (= “the big bang”). It also shows that the cause of this creation event is non-physical and non-temporal. The cause is supernatural.
Atheism prefers an eternal universe, to get around the problem of a Creator having to create the universe.
Discovery #1: Observations of galaxies moving away from one another confirms that the universe expanded from a single point.
Discovery #2: Measurements of the cosmic background radiation confirms that the universe exploding into being.
Discovery #3: Predictions of elemental abundances prove that the universe is not eternal.
Discovery #4:The atheism-friendly steady-state model and oscillating model were both falsified by the evidence.
And there were other discoveries as well, mentioned in the lecture.
The best non-theistic response to this argument is to postulate a hyper-universe outside of ours, but that is very speculative and there is no experimental evidence that supports it.
Evidence #3: The origin of life
1. The progress of science has shown that the simplest living organism contains huge amounts of biological information, similar to the Java code I write all day at work. This is a problem for atheists, because the sequence of instructions in a living system has to come together all at once, it cannot have evolved by mutation and selection – because there was no replication in place prior to the formation of that first living system!
Living systems must support certain minimum life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating.
There needs to be a certain amount of complexity in the living system that can perform these minimum functions.
But on atheism, the living system needs to be simple enough to form by accident in a pre-biotic soup, and in a reasonable amount of time.
The minimal functionality in a living system is a achieved by DNA, RNA and enzymes. DNA and RNA are composed of sequences of proteins, which are in turn composed of sequences of amino acids.
Consider the problems of building a chain of 100 amino acids
The amino acids must be left-handed only, but left and right kinds are equally abundant in nature. How do you sort out the right-handed ones?
The amino acids must be bound together using peptide bonds. How do you prevent other types of bonds?
Each link of the amino acid chain needs to be carefully chosen such that the completed chain with fold up into a protein. How do you choose the correct amino acid for each link from the pool of 20 different kinds found in living systems?
In every case, a human or other intelligence could solve these problems by doing what intelligent agents do best: making choices.
But who is there to make the choices on atheism?
The best current non-theistic response to this is to speculate that aliens may have seeded the Earth with life at some point in the past.
The problem of the origin of life is not a problem of chemistry, it is a problem of engineering. Every part of car functionality can be understood and described using the laws of physics and chemistry. But an intelligence is still needed in order to assemble the components into a system that has the minimal requirements for a functioning vehicle.
Stephen Meyer is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design who directs the Centre for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. His most recent book “Signature in the Cell” claims to show that the DNA code is the product of intelligent mind, not naturalistic processes. Keith Fox is Professor of Biochemistry at Southampton University. He chairs the UK Christians in Science network but disagrees strongly with ID. They debate how life could have originated and whether design is allowed as an explanation in science.
Summary: (stuff in italics is my snarky paraphrase)
Meyer:
background and how he got interested in intelligent design
his research focus is on the origin of life – the first replicator
summarizes the history of origin of life studies
authored the book “Signature in the Cell”
the DNA enigma: where did the information in DNA come from?
naturalistic explanations of the DNA information have failed
but intelligent agents are known to be able to produce information
the best explanation of the information in DNA is that an intelligent agent authored it
Meyer’s book was named by atheist philosopher of science Thomas Nagel as a Times Literary Supplement Book of the Year in 2010
why is design so controversial? Many people think that Darwin explained why nature appears design
the Darwinian view is that nature can create the appearance of design using mutation and selection
however, Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain the origin of the first living cell, it assumes replication, and the origin of life is about where the first replicator comes from
Fox:
Meyer’s argument is not about the evolution of life after the first cell
Meyer’s case for design is about the origin of life
naturalists do not know a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life
there are a number of naturalistic hypotheses for the origin of life, like the RNA-first hypothesis
maybe in a few years one of them will turn out to be correct
what intelligent design is arguing from a gap in our current naturalistic knowledge to infer that God intervened in nature
Meyer:
that’s not what intelligent design is at all
the approach ID theorists use is the inference to best explanation
you evaluate all explanations, non-intelligent causes and intelligent causes
you prefer the best possible explanation
we know that minds are capable of producing information just like the information we find in DNA
Fox:
living cells replicate, so they have the ability to introduce mutations as they replicate and then some of those mutations can be selected
so maybe the process of replicating that living cells do created the first living cell
maybe the first living cell created itself, X brought X into being, self-creation, what’s irrational about that?
Meyer:
the issue is the origin of life – where did the first living cell come from?
you cannot appeal to the operations that a living cell can perform to explain the origin of the first living cell
there was no first living cell operating before the first living cell
there was no replication, mutation or selection before the first living cell
in fact, in my book I show that there is no known naturalistic mechanism that is able to produce the information needed for the first living cell
nothing can create itself, that is self-contradictory
Fox:
Well, you are just saying that because something is complex that God did it
Meyer:
Sadly, no. What I actually said needed to be explained was the information, not complexity
And we know from software engineering that the process of adding information to code is performed by programmers
in the absence of any adequate naturalistic explanation for information, we are justified in taking the explanation that we are familiar with – namely, intelligent agency – based on our uniform, universal experience of what causes information
Fox:
well, maybe we can appeal to the mutation and selection in existing living cells to explain the origin of the first living cell
maybe there were living cells before the first living cell, and then these other living cells created the first living cell
Meyer:
we can’t keep invoking mutation and selection when those processes are not operating prior to the origin of the first living cell
Fox:
well maybe some bare-bones self-replication molecule was a precursor to the first living cell
Meyer:
even to generate very limited replicator would require a large amount of information
the argument I am making is – where does the evolution come from?
Fox:
well, maybe we will think of an explanation for information that is naturalistic in 20 years
we’ve thought of explanations to things that were NOT information before
so maybe we will be able to think of something to explain information based on our ability to explain NOT information before
Moderator: Change topics: the Dover decision
Meyer:
the Discovery Institute opposed the policy that causes the trial
the wording of the statute was poor
the judge was completely wrong in his decision
young earth creationists used the phrase “intelligent design” to cover their agenda
intelligent design is an inference using the normal methods of science
Fox:
intelligent design is a science stopper because it stops looking for a naturalistic explanation
everything in nature must have a naturalistic explanation
everything has to be explained using matter and time and chance
it just has to be that way!!!!
Meyer:
well, what luck would you have explaining an effect like Mt. Rushmore?
can you explain that using matter,time and chance?
Mt. Rushmore was the product of intelligence, not wind and erosion
similarly, there is information in the cell, and we know that intelligence causes information
Fox:
So you are saying that we don’t understand and therefore an intelligence is necessary?
Meyer:
no I am saying we DO understand and we are making an inference based on that understanding
you are the one who is insisting on a material explanation because you pre-suppose materialism
we know that minds have causal powers, and we can infer mind as an explanation from information
Fox:
well nature is a seamless chain of material causes and effects
Meyer:
agents can act without violating the laws of nature
even humans can act as intelligent agents to create information in books, and they don’t violate the laws of nature
intelligent causes are real, and they explain effects in nature
Fox:
you’re trying to impose on science something to do with meaning and purpose
Meyer:
no that’s not what we’re doing, we’re inferring from from the fact that we ourselves are known causes of information to the fact that an intelligence cause is the best explanation for information in the cell
Fox:
but I am a materialist, I need a materialist explanation
Meyer:
mind IS an answer to the how question
we infer to mind in many other scientific disciplines, like cryptography, archaeology, etc.
a materialist might accuse an archaeologist of engaging in a “scribe-of-the-gaps” argument, but the best explanation of an artifact with information is a scribe
we are inferring that mind is the cause from the nature of the effect: information
Moderator: is it appropriate to call DNA “information”
Fox:
well DNA is just a molecular polymer, any reference to information is just by analogy
Meyer:
DNA is a molecular polymer, but it also exhibits the property of specified complexity
the arrangement of bases, which function as machine instructions in a software program, for performings task in the cell
we have observed that the property of specified complexity always comes from an intelligence
Fox:
well, maybe there are other sequences that would work, so maybe it’s really not uncommon to develop functioning sequences by chance alone, without an intelligence
Meyer:
you can measure how precise the functional specificity is in DNA and proteins
Moderator: is Shannon information the same as functional information
Meyer:
Shannon information refers to the sequences of digits or symbols that do not necessarily have any function, i.e. – a four character string QSZX has as much Shannon information as WORD. However, only the latter is functional against the pattern of the English language. There are arrangements of DNA bases and amino acids that have the same number of symbols/characters as a functional sequence would have, but they have no biological function – they do not exhibit specified complexity
Fox:
Well, maybe there are lots and lots of sequences of DNA and proteins so that it is fairly easy to get a functional one by chance
Meyer:
DNA sequences that are functional are extremely rare, protein sequences are even more rare
this is not my opinion, this is what the research shows – functional protein sequences are rare
Fox:
well maybe there are other functional sequences that are occur before the first functional sequence that are precursors to the first functional sequence
maybe there are billions of years of replication, mutation and selection before the first replication, mutation and selection
Meyer:
you can’t get to the first selectable functional sequence by appealing to precursor selectable functional sequences – there are no selectable functional sequences before the FIRST one
you have to get the first selectable functional sequence by chance alone, because there is nothing to mutate or select before the first replicator
the chance hypothesis has been rejected because the minimal amount of information for the simplest replicator is too high to get by chance alone, given the resources, including time, that are available
Moderator: Keith are you confident that naturalism will be able to substantiate these naturalism-of-the-gap speculations that you offer in response to Meyer’s actual science that we have today?
Fox:
well, it is hard to know for sure because it was just a fluke event
but there’s nothing irrational or unscientific or miraculous about it – the fluke would have a material explanation
there is nothing that we can detect that would implicate God, my speculations about a fluke which I cannot observe or measure or test would all be compatible with an atheistic worldview that omits God as a causal entity
Meyer:
where are those material processes that could account for this fluke then?
the whole point of this argument is that the information in DNA transcends the material components in the sequence
it’s the arrangement of the material parts/letters/characters/symbols/instructions that needs to be explained
Fox:
Well, I just have a different philosophy of science that rules out intelligent causation a priori
Meyer:
Yes, that’s the difference between us – you pre-suppose that all explanations of natural phenomena must exclude intelligent causes
There is a bit more where Meyer talks about how parts of the cell are implementations of various design patterns (Gang of Four design patterns) that are used by software architects who design software.
WINTERY KNIGHT 