Latest / Urantia Radio / Stephen C. Meyer - Intelligent Design

Transcript

Stephen C. Meyer - Intelligent Design · Urantia Radio

0:00
It's good to have you here and I appreciate you joining me.
0:02
My, my, this is something that I'm into completely.
0:08
I've always been a big believer in the intelligent design
0:12
hypothesis and clearly you are as well.
0:15
Let me introduce you to my audience, Stephen C Meyer has
0:19
received a PhD in the philosophy of science from the University
0:23
of Cambridge, a former geophysicist and college
0:26
professor. He now directs discovery
0:29
institute's Center for Science, and culture in Seattle and
0:33
addition to two Myers landmarks book.
0:36
The New York Times bestselling Darwin's doubt the explosive
0:40
origin of animal life, and the case for intelligent design and
0:45
the book signature of in the cell DNA and the evidence for
0:50
intelligent design. And then of course, the
0:52
peer-reviewed volume Darwinism design and public education
0:56
published in 2004, Michigan State University.
1:00
And explore Evolution also published in 2007.
1:05
So it is clear, has it always been the case?
1:08
Stephen, that you are a proponent of intelligent design,
1:12
always, or did it happen? Because of some discovery that
1:16
you had? Well, it has I first became
1:19
interested in the idea in the mid 80s when I was a very young
1:24
scientist. I attended a conference in
1:27
Dallas where I was working. I was working at the time as a
1:32
geophysicist doing what was called Digital Signal processing
1:35
which is an early form of Information Technology and I
1:39
attended a conference on the origin of life and the origin of
1:43
the universe to great big subjects that intersect science
1:46
and philosophy and discovered listening to a very spirited
1:52
discussion on a panel between proponents of what was then not
1:58
really even called. And design it was just a very
2:02
nascent idea that there must be some sort of intelligent cause
2:05
that played a role in the origin of life.
2:08
On the one hand and on the other there were proponents of a
2:10
strictly chemical evolutionary theory proposed that you could
2:16
explain the origin of the first life as a result of undirected
2:19
chemical processes and both sides in the discussion agreed.
2:23
That the problem of the origin of the first life had not been
2:25
solved, there wasn't an adequate chemical evolutionary theory and
2:29
the big Do they both recognize both sides, recognize was the
2:32
origin of the information that's stored in DNA and other large
2:38
called bio macromolecules, things like RNA and proteins,
2:42
and that on the one side that the proponents of the chemical
2:49
evolutionary approach, that hey, give us more time.
2:50
We'll figure this out. And on the other side, the
2:53
scientists were saying, well, wait a minute isn't information.
2:56
Typically a product of mind. At that point, I got really
3:00
intrigued, maybe what we're looking at at the foundation of
3:03
life in the code that stored in the DNA, the digital code that
3:07
stored is actually evidence of a designing intelligence.
3:11
And so, I ended entered into some fascinating conversations
3:15
with some of the scientists I met at that conference who are
3:17
proponents of this idea that later became known as the theory
3:21
of intelligent design or the evidence for intelligent design.
3:24
I went to grad school and Cambridge for four years, did a
3:27
PhD on origin of Life biology. And by the time I finished that
3:32
I was pretty convinced that we were in fact, looking at
3:34
evidence of design in the cell. And so I think sometime in the
3:38
late 80s, early 90s, I became convinced of intelligent design
3:42
and I've been working on it ever since.
3:44
It's interesting because in philosophy classes that I took
3:48
in college particularly around 1991, there was a lot of
3:52
discussion about intelligent design, creationism versus
3:57
random causation, and It was always a sticking point that it
4:03
seemed to me even then that science was hesitant to embrace
4:07
any notion of intelligent design because it it almost gives
4:13
Credence to the idea of a God or an all-powerful and you'd have
4:18
to be an all-powerful Creator. In order to design such a
4:22
complex living organism as the universe with all of its
4:26
anticipated. So how is it that science can.
4:29
Bill with a straight face assume hypothetically that random
4:35
causation is how we got here by accident?
4:38
How can they how can they put Faith in that kind of?
4:42
You know, there is a sometimes unspoken but sometimes spoken
4:47
rule of method but many scientists adhere to and regard
4:50
as effectively normative for them and that rule has a name
4:55
it's called methodological naturalism.
4:58
And it states, simply that if you're going to explain
5:01
something scientifically, you must limit yourself to strictly
5:05
materialistic. Explanations those based on
5:08
chance or Randomness as you mentioned, or other types of
5:11
materialistic explanation such as natural laws or undirected
5:15
processes like natural selection.
5:19
The problem with that rule though is that in many in many
5:24
Realms of science, it's not a problematic rule first, I should
5:27
say that. Because in many Realms of
5:30
science are just asking, how does one part of nature, affect
5:32
another part and questions of that form, give rise naturally
5:37
to questions about what nature is doing on its own unassisted
5:40
by intelligence. But if you're asking questions
5:43
about causal Origins, and ultimate causal, Origins
5:47
questions about the origin of the first life, or questions
5:49
about the origin of the universe, or questions about how
5:51
the universe acquired. Its finely-tuned structure.
5:55
An answer might be Adequate answer might involve only
6:00
undirected material processes but the right answer might also
6:04
involve the idea of creative intelligence that may be a mind
6:07
played a role in some of the features in the origin of some
6:11
of the features that we see in life for the universe.
6:14
And so if you close yourself off from that possibility, ah,
6:18
priori before you have any experience before, you've even
6:21
examined the data you may be, you may end up because of your
6:25
rule of method, missed the Answer, you may not get the best
6:29
explanation. You may only get the best
6:31
explanation among an artificially limited set of
6:34
materialistic possibilities. And so, one of the things we've
6:37
been doing, in the intelligent design, research Community is
6:41
not only looking at the evidence striking, evidence of design in
6:45
life and the universe and our planetary system and other other
6:49
parts of nature. But also challenging that rule
6:52
of method and suggesting that we need to have a more open
6:56
philosophy of science that allows us to consider the best
6:59
explanation, whatever, whether it conforms to those
7:04
materialistic sensibilities or not.
7:06
And and so much of my work has actually been involved with
7:11
challenging. The rule of method known as
7:15
methodological naturalism and showing that it's it's
7:17
intellectually limiting for the scientist and really, we want to
7:21
follow the evidence and come up with the best explanation.
7:26
No-holds-barred is one of Michael.
7:27
Yeah. So, and and so, where did this
7:31
come from? I've done some reading on the
7:35
early, Enlightenment, Enlightenment period, the Age of
7:37
Reason, if you will, and it seemed to me more of a reaction
7:41
to the overbearing Church, they there was such an attempt to get
7:45
away from the grips of this Authority authoritative and
7:48
clergy that, you know, we all know the story of Galileo and
7:52
Copernicus, and a lot of these early scientists were actually
7:56
excommunicated because of their Views of a solar system instead
8:01
of an earth Centrist universe. So was was the secularism that
8:05
was part of the early fabric of science.
8:08
A reaction to distance itself from religion.
8:14
Well, I think there was a movement in philosophy.
8:18
Actually, when you mentioned the tone, is The Enlightenment, the
8:20
famous movement in philosophy which was an attempt to
8:23
establish the legitimacy of human reason, apart from divine
8:28
revelation and and a separation of reason and Revelation,
8:34
although there were theistic and Christian versions of the
8:37
Enlightenment as well. So it was not a unitary kind of
8:40
movement, but there was a very secular Emphasis in some parts
8:45
of or in some some Enlightenment thinkers and in as that if began
8:51
to that began to affect science in the 19th century.
8:53
And there was a, there's a famous philosopher named August
8:58
comped, his argued that science is it progresses goes through
9:02
three stages. There's a theological stage,
9:05
which is essentially mythological, he thought you
9:08
know, invoking God's and Thunderbolts and that sort of
9:10
thing and then there's a Philosophical stage.
9:15
There he exemplified by people like Aristotle and Plato with
9:20
Concepts like the forms or things like that.
9:23
And then there's a positive stage where we explain
9:26
everything by reference to Natural laws.
9:28
And that's the scientific stage. And so science in the way he
9:32
defined. It necessarily must extricate
9:35
itself from theological superstitions and explain
9:39
everything. By reference to undirected
9:42
material processes in Laws of nature Darwin was very much
9:46
influenced by comped and in the Origin of Species.
9:50
You saw this for the first time or one of the first times, this
9:54
kind of intentional rhetorical strategy of defining, any
9:58
explanation by reference to creative intelligence, or mind
10:01
or design, or God as an unscientific explanation.
10:06
So in Darwin was looking at a phenomenon known as homology,
10:09
the similarity of structure in different organisms,
10:14
Morphological structure. He said, well, you know, there
10:17
is this other explanation idea that the similarity is the
10:23
result of divine, Divine or design, but he said, but he
10:31
says, but that's not a scientific explanation, though.
10:33
Acknowledged that it could explain the data, but it was not
10:36
the similarity might be the result of a common design from a
10:39
chronic singular intelligence, but he said that's not a
10:43
scientific Nation and therefore he elected.
10:45
His alternative is the only one that could really be considered.
10:48
And yeah, and we've seen this rhetorical strategy now played
10:51
out in these Origins questions for 160 years and intelligent
10:56
design movement. As you mentioned is challenging
10:58
that because there are there are very striking indicators of
11:02
design in living systems, for example, that are not well,
11:05
explained by undirected material processes, but are exactly the
11:08
kind of thing that we know to be the case.
11:11
No, to no.2 have Arisen base. On our uniform and repeated
11:15
experience from the activity of intelligence.
11:16
And one of those strike most striking indicators is
11:19
information, especially information, that is functional
11:22
and is expressed in a digital or alphabetic form.
11:25
And that's essentially what we have in living systems, Stephen
11:29
Meyer is my guest, a philosopher of science, author of some
11:32
incredible Works, which we'll get into it in more detail.
11:35
So are we any closer to understanding how the mind
11:41
before I asked you that I argued once too?
11:44
Professor of religion at a university, who was an admitted
11:48
atheist. I said, well, how do you?
11:51
How do you explain pattern and consistency of laws are they not
11:56
denoting of intelligence? Because patterns after all do
12:00
indicate form and form is not accidental form is adheres to
12:06
strict laws of physical science. So even in observing physical
12:12
laws we observe Serve patterns that repeat at different levels,
12:16
varying levels, for example, a simple drop of a, you know, a
12:20
pebble in in a pond. You see?
12:23
A concentric Circle that moves out uniformly.
12:26
It's not haphazard, it's not variable, it's in a uniform
12:30
pattern. So, I've argued that pattern
12:33
itself is a great clue to the fact that the Universe, however,
12:37
it came to be and however, we came to be must have been a
12:41
pre-planned event and it seems to be That there's more of an
12:44
argument for that rather than random causation.
12:50
Well, the early scientists Newton boil Kepler, for example,
12:57
thought that what we call the laws of nature are actually an
13:00
expression of divine action that the term laws of nature was as
13:08
one historian has putted a juridical metaphor of
13:11
theological origin. There are laws in nature.
13:14
There are these regularities because there is a law Giver or
13:17
law sustainer someone who's sustaining the The orderly
13:20
Concourse of Nature, and this was actually Newton's View and
13:24
it was expressed in his Grand work, the principia, which was
13:31
exploring the, the mathematical structure of nature, as a way of
13:36
understanding the mind of God. And he wrote a theological
13:41
epilogue, to the principia called, the general Schoo.
13:45
Liam in which he essentially paraphrase, that passage from
13:50
The book of Colossians where it says in God, all things are are
13:54
held together. And so this is, this is a very
14:02
venerable view of what the laws of nature are these patterns
14:06
that we see these patterns of regularity now naturalist.
14:10
So naturalistically minded philosophers have said, well,
14:13
the laws of nature are in essence, the ground of all
14:17
being. They are the primary.
14:19
See the thing that explains everything else, Sean Carroll is
14:23
said that naturalism is the world view that holds that that
14:29
ultimately there are. There's a series of explanations
14:33
in terms of natural processes that ultimately Finds Its the
14:37
Finds Its ultimate explanation in the laws of nature and then
14:40
you can go no further. So, for the, the naturalistic
14:44
philosophers opposed to the theistic one, the laws of nature
14:47
are the ultimate explanatory. Suppose the ultimate realities
14:52
and they need no further explanation.
14:54
They just are what we've been doing in the, in the intelligent
14:59
design movement is showing that there's another way to detect
15:01
design besides just merely pattern.
15:04
And that is the idea that when you have events or systems that
15:11
exhibit, both a pattern, that we know independently from some
15:14
other realm of experience and that pattern is highly
15:18
improbable. Improbable as it were against
15:22
the backdrop of what nature ordinarily does.
15:25
Then we can detect the special action of this, Divine
15:28
intelligence, or of some intelligence.
15:31
And so for example we often use the faces on the Mountain at
15:37
Mount Rushmore is an example, there's a pattern there but it's
15:40
a highly improbable in a regular pattern that you would not
15:43
expect to arise based on wind and erosion or other natural
15:46
processes and it's a pattern that we recognize from Pendant
15:49
experience. So when we see those faces, we
15:51
immediately recognized the designing intelligence must have
15:54
been involved. The idea that that God is the
15:59
ultimate explanation for the regularities of nature is a
16:02
possible explanation, but in the case of a pattern that's also
16:06
highly improbable against what natural laws typically produce,
16:12
then we have an argument that is not just possible but definitely
16:15
the best or the we have evidence of design is the best
16:18
explanation not It possible explanation and the kind of in
16:24
the other kind of indicator of design that we've identified.
16:30
That's that's decisive, is the presence of information because
16:34
we know of only one known cause for information again especially
16:39
as we find it in a digital or alphabetic form, and that's what
16:41
we have in DNA. Bill Gates has said that DNA is
16:44
like a software program but much more complex than any we've ever
16:48
created. Richard Dawkins, the great
16:50
scientific atheist from Great Britain has himself acknowledged
16:53
that DNA contains machine code. One of our great biotech
16:59
Engineers bio technicians Leroy Hood out here in Seattle has
17:03
said that DNA, simply contains digital code.
17:07
Well, what we know from experience is that such code
17:09
always arises from a programmer and in fact, whenever we see
17:14
information and we trace it back to its ultimate source, whether
17:17
we're talking about A paragraph and a book or hieroglyphic
17:23
inscription, or information embedded in a radio signal, or
17:26
information in a computer program of some kind.
17:30
We always trace it back or come ultimately, to am I not an
17:35
undirected material process. So the laws of nature May well
17:39
be a product of of an underlying, The Hidden Hand of
17:45
God, if you will. But when we encounter
17:47
information in a In a complex functional and digital form.
17:53
We have decisive evidence of intelligent design and that's
17:56
that's where we've laid the stress in our work.
17:59
And is this because we have become better at looking and
18:03
evaluating our own DNA and how it works.
18:05
And because up until recently, we that the new area of
18:11
exploration, is it not DNA as well getting into the
18:14
Breakthrough and yeah, thanks for asking, sorry to interrupt
18:18
the, the The Breakthrough in this area of study came in the
18:23
1950s and 60s in a period that historians of science.
18:27
Now called the molecular biological Revolution, it wasn't
18:29
that long ago, but Watson and Crick elucidated the structure
18:32
of DNA in 1953 in 57 and 58 Creek.
18:40
Propose, something he called the sequence hypothesis, which was
18:44
the idea that the chemical subunits that run along the
18:47
interior of the DNA molecule. If you think back to high school
18:50
biology, think of that twisting, he looks right.
18:53
And along the inside of that Helix there are chemical
18:56
subunits called bases, that run up and down the spine of the
19:01
Helix some on each side. There's what they call
19:04
complementary base pairing and all that, but creek, proposed
19:08
that those those subunits called basis.
19:10
Are functioning like alphabetic characters in a written text or
19:14
we could say now, like the zeros and ones in a section of
19:17
software which is to say that the basis do not perform their
19:21
function in virtue of their chemical properties, or their
19:24
shapes, or their, the mass or anything like that, or physical
19:28
or chemical properties. But instead in virtue of their
19:30
arrangement, in a chord with an independent symbol convention,
19:34
which is similar to the nine Realms of genetic codes inside
19:38
life, we have genetic code and genetic text And that's where
19:41
this all began. This information based analysis
19:43
of life. That's fascinating.
19:46
And do would you say that having gone this far where did life or
19:51
how do you feel it? Oh, by the way, I just read the
19:54
other day that they have now completed the whole genetic code
19:57
of humanity, right? This is something I read in
20:00
where they have mapped out. The entire genome structure of
20:04
the human DNA, is that? Well, I think Francis Crick
20:09
first. Announced the completion.
20:10
Pleat sequencing of the human genome in 2000, and Craig
20:15
Venter. Had a big hand in that there
20:18
were both private and publicly funded groups working on that.
20:20
And they keep making advances in categorizing, the genetic
20:25
information that's contained therein.
20:27
But yeah, this is a big discovery that, you know, even
20:29
our human genome we've known since Watson is about the
20:33
mid-60s. W are sorry since the mid-60s
20:37
crick's hypothesis of the sequence.
20:40
Has been well established. It was confirmed by a series of
20:43
experiments on both sides of the Atlantic.
20:45
It was, it was not the kind of prediction or proposal that you
20:49
could, you could confirm with one simple experiment, it was
20:53
really a matter of mapping out how the information in the DNA
20:56
is directing the construction of the proteins and protein
21:00
machines that keep cells alive. That's called the gene
21:02
expression system or system for protein synthesis.
21:06
So since then we've known that crick's idea was was Essentially
21:11
correct. And and then there have been a
21:15
vast advances in field known as bioinformatics in which we've
21:20
been able to map the genomes of of letter by letter to figure
21:25
out a what's there and and and increasingly probably what
21:28
you're referring to is, we're getting more and more
21:30
information about what the different sections of the genome
21:32
do. And we've been able to do that
21:35
for scientists, have been able to do that for multiple
21:38
organisms, so understanding Informational properties at the
21:42
foundation of life. For many different organisms has
21:46
been a big part of biology. Certainly, since since year
21:51
2000, this is exciting stuff and I know we don't have a all day
21:57
because I could go all day on this one.
21:59
Let's talk about the mind for a minute is mind a physical
22:04
reality. In other words?
22:05
Or is it super imposed upon the mechanism of our conscience?
22:10
In other, Words, it does it act independently of the material
22:13
world and that's what, what do we know about the mind that we
22:16
didn't know? What are the recent discoveries?
22:19
We've learned about the mind. That lead you to believe that
22:23
there might be a universal mind. Well, there are two different
22:28
basic views of What's called the mind-body question.
22:32
One is that, is that the material brain is primary and
22:37
what we experience as Consciousness is a kind of
22:43
epiphenomenon or byproduct of material processes, but it isn't
22:48
really, no way a separate kind of reality and that everything
22:55
that We experience is a very direct product of neuro
23:00
physiological processes. The other view is that the rain
23:05
is being used by the mind as an organ of sense and an organ of
23:10
thought. And and so that the mind is, is
23:16
actually the mental realm is really quite separate.
23:20
From the the material, the material substrate that does
23:24
indeed make it possible. But the idea here is that the
23:27
brain is a necessary, but not sufficient condition of what's
23:30
taking place in the mind. We can reason because of the
23:35
properties are powers of our minds.
23:37
Our reasoning is not governed by the neurophysiological events
23:41
that are taking place in our synapses or something.
23:44
So it's not the chemistry isn't determining our thought, the
23:47
chemistry makes possible the mines function, the the
23:52
neurochemistry of the brain, but it's necessary.
23:55
But not Efficient and that they're the Mind.
23:58
Therefore has its own capabilities and - spontaneous
24:04
and it deliberate it. Yeah, the most and I tend to the
24:07
second view, I think in the mind and I think there's a lot of,
24:10
there's actually, a lot of physiological evidence that the
24:13
what's going on in the brain, cannot explain everything that's
24:17
going on in the mind and the mind is using the brain.
24:19
And I think all of us have the sense that we can make choices,
24:23
you know, I lift my arm. I'm putting in motion a new
24:29
series of cause and effect events that and that that begin
24:33
with a choice in my mind, not as a result of something that
24:36
happened. In my, my brain, something
24:39
happens in my brain as a result of my mental choice, but the
24:43
mental is primary, and I think that's when people actually
24:48
think about this deeply and are introspective about the powers
24:53
of their own agency. We all are Consciously aware
24:56
beings. We have an intuitive awareness
24:59
of what our minds can do. We all sense that we can
25:03
initiate new lines of cause and effect?
25:07
That is to say, we can make choices that make a difference
25:10
in how things happen in the physical world.
25:13
So there I think as counterintuitive as it is in a
25:18
materialistic, scientific age to think of something immaterial,
25:22
controlling, something material, I think that's actually much
25:25
more Consistent with our own direct introspective experience
25:29
of what mines do and what we as thinking self conscious agents
25:34
and of the powers that we as self-conscious agents have, this
25:38
is obviously a huge discussion, but I think they're both
25:41
philosophical reasons to hold this.
25:43
What's called a mind-body, duelist position and
25:46
neurophysiological experiments that support the idea that the
25:51
mind is not the brain and the brain is not the mind.
25:54
The mind is control. And using the brain as an organ
25:57
of sense. And thought, I guess you could
26:00
put it this way. You know, you've got an
26:02
airplane, you've got a pilot, you've got a navigator.
26:05
And the pilot seems to know where the direction it wants to
26:08
head and the the airplane represents, I think the body,
26:14
the physical body and it's an interesting and ongoing
26:19
discussion. It's one of the reasons I like
26:21
philosophy because you can discuss it from age to age and
26:24
it's just fascinating. Mating Stephen C, Meyer?
26:26
Dot org, is the website Steven that's stephan1.
26:32
See, Meyer dot-org, the author of The Return of the god
26:34
hypothesis. Also, his previous Works
26:37
Darwin's doubt. And the DSL DNA, and the
26:40
evidence of intelligent design and I wish I had more time.
26:44
I want to just real quickly, what were the markers in your
26:47
opinion? That give give give rise to the
26:50
hypothesis. That DNA was an organized
26:53
structure. In other words, it was Find what
26:56
were some of the markers that you found?
26:58
Well it's it's the presence of the information.
27:03
That's directing the protein synthesis and the use of a code
27:06
to translate the information from one form into a useful form
27:11
of information for the production of the proteins.
27:15
And that's one of the three indicators of intelligent design
27:20
in the universe as the intelligent design and life in
27:22
the book. I also look at what's called the
27:24
fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics and the
27:28
other Basic physical parameters that make life possible in the
27:31
universe. So we see not only evidence of
27:33
designer Rising long after the beginning of the universe in the
27:35
first life. But we also see evidence of
27:37
design in the fine-tuning of the physical parameters of the
27:40
Universe. From the very beginning of the
27:42
universe, which suggests a designing intelligence, which is
27:45
not only active in the creation. But also must transcend, the
27:47
creation must have the capability of structuring, the
27:50
whole of the creation from the beginning and then the third key
27:53
piece of evidence that I look at for what I call not just said
27:57
intelligent design. Hi This is but the god
27:59
hypothesis. God as the designer is that the
28:03
universe itself, the physical Universe of matter space time
28:05
and energy had a definite beginning a finite time ago
28:09
before, which it would be impossible to provide a
28:12
materialistic explanation because before the origin of
28:14
matter, there would be no matter to remove the ultimate causing
28:18
you need something that transcends matter space time and
28:20
energy is capable of initiating. A huge change of state is
28:24
immensely powerful and is also intelligent enough to structure
28:27
everything to Reduce Ally friendly Universe.
28:30
Does that remind you of anyone exactly the argument of the
28:33
book? I think I would I argue is that
28:36
a theistic God, insofar as it has those necessary properties
28:41
provides, the best explanation for the origin of life in the
28:43
universe. And that's what I call the
28:45
return of the god hypothesis. I'm sure it's great.
28:48
Reading, I encourage people listening to this podcast to
28:52
join. Stephen C Meyer and his journey.
28:53
It's a Wonderful journey and he'll show you things.
28:56
You probably never thought about before Stephen.
28:58
C, Meyer dot-org, name of the book, Return of the god
29:02
hypothesis, and I thank you. It's an honor to speak with you
29:05
big fan of yours and I hope we can have you on again real soon.