Dawkins on Expelled
I’ve watched the video clip several times. When Ben Stein asked whether intelligent design could be a possible explanation for life on this planet, Dawkins says the following:
It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Dawkins gives us a thought experiment from science fiction. Imagine a group of aliens that came here some 4 billion years ago with the purpose of seeding life on this planet. This is a scenario in which life on earth could have arisen. As far fetched as this might seem, it is surely a possibility. And it is in this sense that intelligent design could be true. What is upsetting is how Stein fails to understand that this is a mere thought experiment. As Stein says later in the video:
So Professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers, such as God.
NO! What Dawkins was doing was bending over backwards for Stein and giving intelligent design his best shot. He does not actually believe this scenario to be true. Dawkins thinks that an intelligent designer of this sort is more likely than the God of the bible. Is this really surprising? Dawkins then goes on to say that even if this space alien scenario were true, we would still be left with problem of having to explain how the alien life form came about.
I agree with Dawkins on this one so I’m not really sure what you expected me to say about this or how you think it will better our discussion. Dawkins also has a reaction piece about this movie on his website here.
Intelligent Design
Given our discussion so far I feel that you do not understand what intelligent design is. Intelligent design, as it is commonly discussed, is not just a descriptive term. It is essentially a political and religious movement that masquerades as a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a descendent of creationism but with the “God talk” taken out as to get around the establishment clause of the first amendment so that it can be taught in public schools. Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, irreducible complexity, the design inference, the wedge strategy, Of Pandas and People, Darwin's Black Box, The Discovery Institute-- these are some of the major people, ideas, books, and organizations that are associated with the ID movement. When we talk about intelligent design, this is what we are talking about.
I recommend that you read up on the history of this movement. Eugenie Scott has a detailed history in her book Evolution vs. Creationism. Most of the relevant chapter on neocreationism can be found online here (chapter 6).
I also recommend watching the PBS Nova special on the famous Dover case, Intelligent Design on Trial.
So to say that you will argue either as a deist or an advocate for intelligent design really does not make much sense. The two positions are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Whereas deism is compatible with the science, intelligent design is, at its core, an anti-evolutionist position (organisms created in their original form rather than by evolutionary processes). If you were merely a deist, we would not be writing a blog together because there wouldn't be much for us to argue about. Perhaps I will give reasons for why I am not a deist in a later post but right now we are on the subject of science and religion. And if you were really an advocate for intelligent design, we would not be having our discussion on theistic evolution because intelligent design theorists are opposed to evolution. Please, let us continue where we left off last time.
