Here’s a debate between:

• Stephen C. Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
• Michael Ruse, Director of the History and Philosophy of Science Program at Florida State University

The MP3 file is here. (28 minutes)

The following summary is rated S for Slightly Snarky. Reader discretion is advised.

Topics:

• Moderator: (to Meyer) define creationism, evolution, and intelligent design
• Meyer: creationism is based on an interpretation of the Bible
• Meyer: evolution is an unguided process of mutation and selection that produces organisms
• Meyer: intelligent design is the idea that the best explanation for certain features of life
• Moderator: (to Ruse) Where do you disagree?
• Ruse: Intelligent design is similar to creationism, but I won’t say how exactly
• Meyer: ID is a good explanation for the sudden origin of animal body plans in the Cambrian era
• Moderator: (to Meyer) Is the designer God? Is the designer the Christian God?
• Meyer: No, ID theory is an inference that is rooted in scientific evidence, not in a religious text
• Meyer: ID can be inferred from the origin of biological information and from molecular machines
• Moderator: (to Ruse) Where do you disagree?
• Ruse: Meyer is disingenuous because ID requires the designer to be God
• Meyer: The biological evidence for intelligent design by itself does not implicate God
• Meyer: The fine-tuning of the cosmos is intelligent design in physics, and that *would* require God
• Moderator: (to Meyer) Explain what the Cambrian explosion is
• Meyer: sudden origin of 36 body plans in 10 million years 530 million years ago
• Moderator: So you think that 36 body plans in 10 million years is too sudden for Darwinian mechanisms to produce?
• Meyer: Yes, for two reasons. One, there are no precursors prior to the start of the explosion in complexity
• Meyer: And two, the complexity of animal life includes code, circuitry, hierarchies – best explained by a designer
• Moderator: (to Ruse) Is it a problem for you?
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that denies that the Ediacaran fauna are precursors to the Cambrian animals
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that denies that microfossils are precursors to the Cambrian animals
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that denies that animal complexity goes from simple to complex in the fossil record
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that shows that the Cambrian explosion took place over a few million years
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that shows that there were complex organ types at the start of the Cambrian explosion
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that denies that we already have a materialist explanation for the Cambrian explosion
• Ruse: everything is solved! nothing to see here! (folds arms and beams) I trust that my unsupported assertions have relieved your doubts, yes?
• Moderator: Is intelligent design undermined by more recent science?
• Meyer: no, there is an absence of precursor fossils in the period before the Cambrian explosion
• Meyer: there are other things that make the problem even worse for naturalism, like information from epigenetics
• Moderator: (to Ruse) Answer that
• Ruse: He is just pulling out passages out of context because he is a creationist!
• Moderator: The leftist New Yorker reviewer Gareth Cook says that the Cambrian explosion took tens of millions of years
• Meyer: Actually, the peer-reviewed science is clear that the standard date is at most 10 million nears
• Moderator: (to Ruse) Deny the mainstream date
• Ruse: Well, Prothero says no! Ho ho ho! (folds arms) He just says it. No it’s not published in peer-reviewed research
• Ruse: We know so much more than Darwin did, how could the progress of science disprove my materialist pre-supposition? It’s unpossible!
• Moderator: (to Meyer) Isn’t ID pseudo-science?
• Meyer: If we limit ourselves to materialist explanations only, then we cannot infer intelligence when we see artifacts like the Rosetta Stone
• Meyer: wind and erosion is not an adequate explanation for certain systems – systems that are rich in information
• Meyer: the best explanation is the explanation that relies on known causes – we know that intelligence produces information
• Moderator: (to Meyer) so the intelligence is the best explanation of systems that have information?
• Meyer: yes, think about software code – the best explanation of new computer instructions is an intelligence
• Meyer: we have uniform and repeated experience of intelligence bringing new information into being, and new animals need new information
• Moderator: (to Ruse) must science only work with natural explanations?
• Ruse: intelligent design is religion! Ho ho ho ho! (folds arms)
• Ruse: there is no a priori way of ruling out supernatural causes in order to explain nature
• Ruse: We don’t need to introduce supernatural causes to explain information in living systems or in software code
• Ruse: Steve is asking me to explain the Cambrian explosion, but why does he want me to explain that?
• Ruse: How did anything start to fly? How did whales come? There, those questions explain the Cambrian explosion naturalistically
• Ruse: Steve’s answer to explain new information is to bring in miracles, like when he said that new computer code requires God
• Ruse: inferring intelligence as an explanation for information like the computer code is religion! God! Creationism! Prayer in schools!
• Ruse: we have to keep looking for naturalistic explanations for the Big Bang, the DNA, the fine-tuning, the Cambrian fossils, etc.
• Ruse: we are never justified in inferring an intelligence to explain information, because that would deny my religion of materialism
• Moderator: (to Ruse) what are the requirements for a theory to be scientific?
• Ruse: any explanation has to be naturalistic, because I am an atheist and that’s my religion, and we can’t go against my religion
• Ruse: it’s “really stupid” to infer God as the explanation of the creation of the entire physical universe or the cosmic fine-tuning
• Moderator: (to Meyer) why is intelligent design so popular when we have court cases saying it is not science?
• Meyer: the Discovery Institute does not have an agenda to teach intelligent design in public schools
• Meyer: intelligent design is about inferring intelligence as a causal explanation for information in living systems, and elsewhere
• Moderator: (to Ruse) are evolutionists unwilling to entertain the possibility of intelligence being the best explanation?
• Ruse: scientists have to make sure that that all their explanations don’t go outside of the materialist reservation
• Ruse: intelligent design is evangelical Christianity dressed up to look like science, the Dover judge said so
• Ruse: Meyer is disingenuous! Ho ho ho ho ho! (folds arms contentedly)
• Meyer: first, judges don’t decide science, evidence decides science
• Meyer: the Dover people made a mistake by trying to go to the courts to get things into the schools
• Meyer: intelligent design is about research, writing books and papers based on what we learn from science
• Moderator: (to Ruse) is intelligent design dangerous?
• Ruse: yes, intelligent design is about politics, it’s not about cosmic fine-tuning, origin of life, molecular machines or Cambrian explosion
• Ruse: intelligent design is about abstinence, prayer in schools, burdening women with unwanted babies and male-female marriage
• Ruse: my reason for opposing ID is the socially conservative agenda which emerges from protein folding probability calculations
• Ruse: I don’t want to be drafted to fight in Vietnam, I don’t want them to take away my drugs, etc. so that’s why I believe Darwinism
• Moderator: (to Meyer) why do you want to take abortion away, you meany?
• Meyer: actually, intelligent design is about science, and in any case National Review gave my book a bad review
• Moderator: (to Ruse) are science and religion in conflict?
• Ruse: well religion can just abstain from making any claims about the physical world, and just stick to subjective nonsense – that’s fair
• Moderator: (to Meyer) isn’t all opposition to evolution rooted in fundamentalist religion?
• Meyer: you can believe in Darwinism and be a theist, but the real reason for doubting Darwinism is the scientific evidence, not religion

Tell me how you think Dr. Meyer did in the comments.

Details: (from NPR web site)

About one third of Americans believe in intelligent design, according to a recent Gallup poll. That’s the idea that humans evolved over time from lesser life forms – with the process guided by God. It’s added a new dimension to the old debate over where humans come from and raised serious concern in the scientific world about mixing faith with science.

• Stephen C. Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
• Michael Ruse, Director of the History and Philosophy of Science Program at Florida State University

The MP3 file is here. (28 minutes)

The following summary is rated S for Slightly Snarky. Reader discretion is advised.

Topics:

• Moderator: (to Meyer) define creationism, evolution, and intelligent design
• Meyer: creationism is based on an interpretation of the Bible
• Meyer: evolution is an unguided process of mutation and selection that produces organisms
• Meyer: intelligent design is the idea that the best explanation for certain features of life
• Moderator: (to Ruse) Where do you disagree?
• Ruse: Intelligent design is similar to creationism, but I won’t say how exactly
• Meyer: ID is a good explanation for the sudden origin of animal body plans in the Cambrian era
• Moderator: (to Meyer) Is the designer God? Is the designer the Christian God?
• Meyer: No, ID theory is an inference that is rooted in scientific evidence, not in a religious text
• Meyer: ID can be inferred from the origin of biological information and from molecular machines
• Moderator: (to Ruse) Where do you disagree?
• Ruse: Meyer is disingenuous because ID requires the designer to be God
• Meyer: The biological evidence for intelligent design by itself does not implicate God
• Meyer: The fine-tuning of the cosmos is intelligent design in physics, and that *would* require God
• Moderator: (to Meyer) Explain what the Cambrian explosion is
• Meyer: sudden origin of 36 body plans in 10 million years 530 million years ago
• Moderator: So you think that 36 body plans in 10 million years is too sudden for Darwinian mechanisms to produce?
• Meyer: Yes, for two reasons. One, there are no precursors prior to the start of the explosion in complexity
• Meyer: And two, the complexity of animal life includes code, circuitry, hierarchies – best explained by a designer
• Moderator: (to Ruse) Is it a problem for you?
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that denies that the Ediacaran fauna are precursors to the Cambrian animals
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that denies that microfossils are precursors to the Cambrian animals
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that denies that animal complexity goes from simple to complex in the fossil record
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that shows that the Cambrian explosion took place over a few million years
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that shows that there were complex organ types at the start of the Cambrian explosion
• Ruse: There is no peer-reviewed paper that denies that we already have a materialist explanation for the Cambrian explosion
• Ruse: everything is solved! nothing to see here! (folds arms and beams) I trust that my unsupported assertions have relieved your doubts, yes?
• Moderator: Is intelligent design undermined by more recent science?
• Meyer: no, there is an absence of precursor fossils in the period before the Cambrian explosion
• Meyer: there are other things that make the problem even worse for naturalism, like information from epigenetics
• Moderator: (to Ruse) Answer that
• Ruse: He is just pulling out passages out of context because he is a creationist!
• Moderator: The leftist New Yorker reviewer Gareth Cook says that the Cambrian explosion took tens of millions of years
• Meyer: Actually, the peer-reviewed science is clear that the standard date is at most 10 million nears
• Moderator: (to Ruse) Deny the mainstream date
• Ruse: Well, Prothero says no! Ho ho ho! (folds arms) He just says it. No it’s not published in peer-reviewed research
• Ruse: We know so much more than Darwin did, how could the progress of science disprove my materialist pre-supposition? It’s unpossible!
• Moderator: (to Meyer) Isn’t ID pseudo-science?
• Meyer: If we limit ourselves to materialist explanations only, then we cannot infer intelligence when we see artifacts like the Rosetta Stone
• Meyer: wind and erosion is not an adequate explanation for certain systems – systems that are rich in information
• Meyer: the best explanation is the explanation that relies on known causes – we know that intelligence produces information
• Moderator: (to Meyer) so the intelligence is the best explanation of systems that have information?
• Meyer: yes, think about software code – the best explanation of new computer instructions is an intelligence
• Meyer: we have uniform and repeated experience of intelligence bringing new information into being, and new animals need new information
• Moderator: (to Ruse) must science only work with natural explanations?
• Ruse: intelligent design is religion! Ho ho ho ho! (folds arms)
• Ruse: there is no a priori way of ruling out supernatural causes in order to explain nature
• Ruse: We don’t need to introduce supernatural causes to explain information in living systems or in software code
• Ruse: Steve is asking me to explain the Cambrian explosion, but why does he want me to explain that?
• Ruse: How did anything start to fly? How did whales come? There, those questions explain the Cambrian explosion naturalistically
• Ruse: Steve’s answer to explain new information is to bring in miracles, like when he said that new computer code requires God
• Ruse: inferring intelligence as an explanation for information like the computer code is religion! God! Creationism! Prayer in schools!
• Ruse: we have to keep looking for naturalistic explanations for the Big Bang, the DNA, the fine-tuning, the Cambrian fossils, etc.
• Ruse: we are never justified in inferring an intelligence to explain information, because that would deny my religion of materialism
• Moderator: (to Ruse) what are the requirements for a theory to be scientific?
• Ruse: any explanation has to be naturalistic, because I am an atheist and that’s my religion, and we can’t go against my religion
• Ruse: it’s “really stupid” to infer God as the explanation of the creation of the entire physical universe or the cosmic fine-tuning
• Moderator: (to Meyer) why is intelligent design so popular when we have court cases saying it is not science?
• Meyer: the Discovery Institute does not have an agenda to teach intelligent design in public schools
• Meyer: intelligent design is about inferring intelligence as a causal explanation for information in living systems, and elsewhere
• Moderator: (to Ruse) are evolutionists unwilling to entertain the possibility of intelligence being the best explanation?
• Ruse: scientists have to make sure that that all their explanations don’t go outside of the materialist reservation
• Ruse: intelligent design is evangelical Christianity dressed up to look like science, the Dover judge said so
• Ruse: Meyer is disingenuous! Ho ho ho ho ho! (folds arms contentedly)
• Meyer: first, judges don’t decide science, evidence decides science
• Meyer: the Dover people made a mistake by trying to go to the courts to get things into the schools
• Meyer: intelligent design is about research, writing books and papers based on what we learn from science
• Moderator: (to Ruse) is intelligent design dangerous?
• Ruse: yes, intelligent design is about politics, it’s not about cosmic fine-tuning, origin of life, molecular machines or Cambrian explosion
• Ruse: intelligent design is about abstinence, prayer in schools, burdening women with unwanted babies and male-female marriage
• Ruse: my reason for opposing ID is the socially conservative agenda which emerges from protein folding probability calculations
• Ruse: I don’t want to be drafted to fight in Vietnam, I don’t want them to take away my drugs, etc. so that’s why I believe Darwinism
• Moderator: (to Meyer) why do you want to take abortion away, you meany?
• Meyer: actually, intelligent design is about science, and in any case National Review gave my book a bad review
• Moderator: (to Ruse) are science and religion in conflict?
• Ruse: well religion can just abstain from making any claims about the physical world, and just stick to subjective nonsense – that’s fair
• Moderator: (to Meyer) isn’t all opposition to evolution rooted in fundamentalist religion?
• Meyer: you can believe in Darwinism and be a theist, but the real reason for doubting Darwinism is the scientific evidence, not religion

Tell me how you think Dr. Meyer did in the comments. I think that Ruse is a Darwinist because he views it as a way to push people away from the conservative morality and politics. But he’s a nice guy, and I appreciate him debating the issue. Things are tough right now for his side.