Transcript for: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution are certain features of living systems that are In recent best explained by designing intelligence, decades Charles rather than an undirected process. That is, by Darwin’s expla- studying nature, you can tell something of the nation of evolu- effects that an intelligence has had on nature. tion through Creationism starts from a different premise. natural selection Not the biological evidence, but rather, it has been chal- starts from holy writ from the bible and lenged by an makes an interpretation about the length of alternative theory the days in Genesis. called Intelligent WATTENBERG: But it’s not just the bible. Design. A growing Every religion has this creation myth. number of science STEVE: Sure. But the theory of intelligent teachers and design is an inference from biological data, school boards are not a deduction from religious authority. struggling with We’re looking at things like the little miniature how to present machines that are being discovered in cells. students with the The rotary engines, the nano technology. The facts. Even turbines, the sliding clamps, the intricate cir- acknowledging cuitry that’s being discovered inside cells. And the existence of an argument has become especially important is the libraries of infor- controversial. How should students learn the mation that are stored in the DNA molecule in history of life on this planet? Are Christianity the form of a four character digital code. For and other major religions incompatible with us this is the basis of the inference to design. Darwinian evolution? Is there any evidence to Not something that you deduce from scrip- support the new theory of intelligent design? ture. So we’re different from the creationists, Can ID and Darwin find common ground? but we’re also different, not from people who hold to evolution. We’re not against evolution To find out, Think Tank is joined this week by per se. Because evolution can mean change Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery over time or even common ancestry, which Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and are not meanings of the terms that we dis- author of Darwinism, Design and Public pute. But we do challenge the specifically Education. Darwinian idea that life is the result of a …and by Dr. Michael Ruse, Director of the purely undirected process that merely mimics Program in the Philosophy of the History of the powers of the designing intelligent so that Science at Florida State University and author the appearance of design is an illusion. And of numerous books including Darwinism and classical Darwinism and modern Darwinism Design and Can a Darwinian be a Christian? both say that things look design but they’re not really, because natural selection produces The Topic Before the House: Intelligent that appearance. We disagree with that and Design vs. Evolution, Survival of the Fittest? say that life really is design. WATTENBERG: Welcome to Think Tank, gen- WATTNEBERG: Michael, before you, I tlemen. Michael Ruse, Steve Meyer. It is a assume, rebut that, give us a little bit of your delight to have you. The topic to me is a fas- background and later Steve, you could do cinating one. Let me break precedence here that also. Where’d you go to school? Where’d and begin with the younger. Steve Meyer, is you grow up? intelligent design different from creationism? MICHAEL: Yes. Well, I’m a historian, philoso- STEVE: It is. It’s also different from Darwinian pher of science, who specializes in Darwin. evolution. Maybe I could explain what it is Obviously, I was born in Darwin’s country; and then the contrast between the two will be I’m English. But I’ve lived in North America clear. Intelligent design is the idea that there for the last forty something years. And I’ve Originally Aired: 12-Oct-2006 Think-Tank Transcript: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution gone all the way from rather technical phi- WATTENBERG: Yeah, but you can define a losophy of science in my early years, to a day as a lot of things. fairly full-blown engagement with creation- MICHAEL: You can, but if you wanted to find ism, with intelligent design theory and many it... of these other sorts of issues. I teach now at STEVE: You understand, Ben, that we have Florida State no problem with the ancient chronology of the WATTENBERG: Okay, what problem do you earth...(Unintelligeble) Creationism is not our have with your young colleague here? position. MICHAEL: Well, I think Steve’s a really nice MICHAEL: I appreciate that. But what I’m guy. I’ve known Steve for many years. I think saying is that basically the creationism that he’s a bit of a sweetie, but as Winston you and I, Ben, would’ve grown up with – I Churchill once said, I think pretending that mean Steve’s a bit young for it –- but the intelligent design theory has nothing to do creationism that we grew up with dates back with religion is what Churchill called, what to 1961 in a book called Genesis Flood by a was it, “a terminologically inexactitude.” In couple of people, Henry Morris, a scientist, other words, it’s a great big fib. I agree with and John Whitcomb, a bible scholar, where him completely that old fashioned creationism they argue that the earth is, in fact, six thou- -- and old fashioned creationism is only thirty sand years old, and it was six days of crea- or forty years old -- but that I agree with him. tion, and of course, the massive flood. I think there’s a difference between creation- MICHAEL: What I’m saying is I agree with ism and intelligent design theory. I think... Steve completely that intelligent design the- WATTENBERG: Now wait a minute. You say ory which goes back I think the last eighties, thirty or forty years old. William Jennings 1980s, and certainly... (Bryan?) in the scopes trial; that goes back STEVE: Actually, earlier than that. eighty years. MICHAEL: Well, certainly -– well I think it MICHAEL: Actually, I’m glad you asked that goes back to Plato of course, cause I don’t question. Because I’ve got an answer to it. think you’re saying anything new, but cer- WATTENBERG: That’s what I get the big tainly as we know it, I think certainly was bucks for. started by Philip Johnson in a big way with his MICHAEL: Right. In fact, people like William book Darwin on Trial in 1991. And certainly Jennings Bryan for instance, him in particular that was the thing which got the movement did not believe that the earth was that young. going. They certainly did not believe that the earth So, I agree with Steve that there are differ- was six thousand years old. When William ences. Nevertheless, I would want to say, for Jennings Bryan was asked by Clarence both creationism and intelligent design the- Darrow on the witness stand about the six ory, there’s a deeply, deeply, antiscientific, days of creation, what Bryan said is, “in the anti naturalistic attitude which ultimately goes eyes of the Lord, a thousand years honors a back to the bible being read more literally day.” He said, “as far as I’m concerned, that’s than traditional Christians would read it. not the issue.” He said, “If you want to STEVE: Let me respond to that… believe that it’s a short time,” he said, “I’ve WATTENBERG: Steve, give me your word on got no problem with that, but it’s not my your background… position.” Only since the second world war STEVE: Yeah yeah My background is actually that we’ve really started to get in a major relevant to what Michael said. way, this young earth creationism. This six WATTENBERG: …and then I’ve got a little riff thousand years. Which, of course, as people that I want to do. like Ron Numbers have pointed out, is in fact, STEVE: Sure. Sure. My background is actually a Seventh Day Adventists belief, which does relevant to what Michael said. Deeply antisci- in fact, go back to the nineteenth century entific. I started out in the field of geophysics. Seventh Day Adventists were very keen on I was doing digital signal processing. the six days being literal days because the WATTENBERG: Whatever that means. Sabbath also had to be a twenty-four-hour STEVE: It’s a science. Looking at information day. in the field of seismology. And I went to a Page 2 of 6 Think-Tank Transcript: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution conference on the origin of life. I was in my underscored a new way of making an argu- mid-twenties and it was in the early eighties ment for design. And I think that it is a very and there were three scientists there that scientific argument and I’m very pro-science. were arguing the digital information that’s We just have come to a different conclusion encoded in DNA is evidence of a prior intelli- about this central issue of whether life is gence. And they were suggesting that the appear as designed or is really designed. classical argument from design that goes all WATTENBERG: Let me see if I can get this the way back to Plato and Aristotle could be right what I think. All people who believe in resuscitated on the basis of modern scientific intelligent design may or may not be crea- discoveries. I was fascinated with that. I tionists. But all people who believe in intelli- spent -– I didn’t come out of the Christian gent design are not creationists.