Stephen Meyer debates Peter Ward on intelligent design vs Darwinism

The speakers

Stephen C. Meyer is director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) and a founder both of the intelligent design movement and of the CSC, intelligent design’s primary intellectual and scientific headquarters. Dr. Meyer is a Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science, the author of peer-reviewed publications in technical, scientific, philosophical and other books and journals. His signal contribution to ID theory is given most fully in Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, published by HarperOne in June 2009.

Graduating from Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington, in 1981 with a degree in physics and earth science, he later became a geophysicist with Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas, Texas. From 1981 to 1985, he worked for ARCO in digital signal processing and seismic survey interpretation. As a Rotary International Scholar, he received his training in the history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University, earning a PhD in 1991. His thesis offered a methodological interpretation of origin-of-life research.

Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., is a paleontologist and professor in the Departments of Geology and Biology at the University of Washington in Seattle. He also serves as an adjunct professor of zoology and astronomy. His research specialties include the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and mass extinctions generally. His books include the best-selling “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe” (co-author Donald Brownlee, 2000), “Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future” (2007), and “The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive?” (2009).

The debate

Here’s the video of the debate:

The debate itself starts at around 8:19, after all the moderators have spoken.

There is a review of this debate here on Evolution News, and I include a snip to encourage you to watch it:

Last night, the Seattle Times Talk of the Times at Town Hall Seattle featured a debate over evolution and intelligent design between CSC Director Stephen Meyer and US paleontologist Peter Ward. The event was sold out with 800+ in attendance for what turned out to be a really good debate.

[...]The debate last night was almost ALL about science–from gene sequencing, to nanotechnology, to the Cambrian explosion, to the philosophy of science that decides how to define the terms in the first place. Both scientists are experts in their fields and the audience was eager to hear what they had to say. No matter how much Darwinists claim there is no debate, and that intelligent design somehow kills curiousity, you can’t argue with hundreds of people showing up to eagerly hear what both sides have to say about the issue. Clearly they were curious about the debate that doesn’t exist.

That article also includes a blow-by-blow summary by a person sympathetic to ID who attended the debate. This is probably the best debate on intelligent design out there, and it was only recently uploaded to Youtube in September last year. When I watch a great debate like this, it really makes me hope that we who do believe that life is designed are raising up the next generation of scientists who ask questions, and don’t assume this philosophical assumption of naturalism. Do the science first. Don’t assume anything religious. Don’t let the religion of naturalism determine what science can and cannot discover. That’s the burden of our side, anyway.

And now a surprise! There is actually a transcript of this debate that I found on the Discovery Institute web site. Isn’t it amazing that intelligent design has been out there for such a long time, yet almost no one can define it, and no one has ever seen a debate where both sides come out to debate it. You can download the audio here, but it’s 90 Mb.

Even though Peter Ward is an atheist, he has co-written a fabulous book that I own and have read called “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe“. I really recommend getting this book, as it is a great book by two non-theists on the habitability argument. It’s sort of a secular precursor to Jay Richards’ and Guillermo Gonzalez’s “The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery“. The habitability argument is a really neglected argument, but it’s a good one.

Filed under: Videos, Science, Education, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Cambrian Explosion, Origin of Life, Stephen C. Meyer, Public Schools, Teach the Controversy, Darwinism, Naturalism, Computer Science, Habitability, Philosophy of Science, Debate, Chance, Design, Stephen Meyer, Fossil Record, Intelligence, Schools, Cell, Cambrian, Michael Behe, Probability, Peter Ward, Peter D. Ward

Will allowing free discussions of scientific theories hurt innovation?

Some people are complaining that allowing students and teachers to question and debate scientific theories will harm economic growth and raise unemployment.

Evolution News explains:

One common piece of rhetoric being lobbed against academic freedom legislation is the claim that the bills would kill jobs and have a negative overall economic effect. An anti-academic freedom op-ed in The Tennessean stated that Tennessee’s academic freedom bill would have “adverse economic consequences for the state” and asked “What high-tech employer will want to open up shop in a state that allows ideology and prejudice to trump science education?”

If you actually read that op-ed, you will find that the authors make the following arguments against academic freedom:

1. scientific theories favored by the secular left should not be subject to falsification by scientific evidence
2. the only reason why some people oppose secular left ideologies like naturalism (e.g. – in the origin of life) and socialism (e.g – man-made global warming) is because of religious beliefs
3. some religious clergy accept ideologies like naturalism and socialism, so therefore everyone should have no problem with naturalistic speculations about the origin of life and doomsday predictions about catastrophic global warming – since there is no scientific reason to oppose these theories
4. scientific theories should be accepted or denied based on the pontifications of organizations like the AAAS or teacher associations, not on the basis of repeatable experiments and measurements
5. lawyers should be able to settle disputes about science using their ability to file lawsuits against school boards
6. although the new law explicitly forbids bringing religion into the classroom, it would bring religion into the classroom
7. environmental regulations, chevy volts on fire, green energy solyndra grants, cap and trade, drilling moratoriums, drilling permit delays and carbon taxes don’t hurt the economy, but allowing students and teachers to ask questions about scientific theories would hurt the economy

Now look at that last argument (#7). Is there any evidence to show that allowing academic freedom and free discussions about scientific theories and scientific evidence would hurt the economy and raise unemployment?

More from Evolution News:

In late 2010, two-and-a-half years after it passed its Science Education Act, Louisiana won the “State of the Year Award” from Business Facilities magazine, in part because of its burgeoning high-tech industry. As the magazine noted:

“The diversity and growth potential of Louisiana’s top projects in both high-tech and traditional manufacturing, as well as healthy total investments, overall job creation and innovative incentives made Louisiana a clear winner of our annual State of the Year Award,” said Business Facilities Editor-in-Chief Jack Rogers.

[...]To determine the winner, Business Facilities reviews each state’s top five projects in terms of overall investment and job creation. The magazine also evaluates the state’s execution of its economic development strategy, and the diversity and growth potential of its target industries.

“We were particularly impressed with the diversity of Louisiana’s strategy for developing high-growth sectors, including digital media, alternative energy, advanced manufacturing, and modular nuclear power plant components,” Rogers said.

The Business Facilities editor noted that Louisiana “has emerged unbowed from a series of disasters that would have brought less-determined locations to their knees — including a major hurricane, an oil spill and the national economic downturn — and charted a course for the future that positions the state to be a national leader for years to come.”

So despite a massive recession, manmade and natural disasters, and — most terrifying of all — an academic freedom law, Louisiana’s economy appears to be doing better than most all other states that don’t have academic freedom laws. It appears that in the experimental laboratory of the real world, the Darwin lobby’s claim that academic freedom bills harm the economy is resoundingly disproved.

To me, it seems intuitively true that students will be more interested in any topic where there are two sides presented fairly. No one likes to be preached at – it’s boring. I realize that some people who are lazy-brained ideologues will try to bypass a fair investigation of scientific disputes and just jump right to agreeing with their government-paid educators, but that’s not a good way of becoming educated. A better way to be educated is to consider the evidence for and against propositions, and not jump to believe whatever the people in authority say that you should believe in order to be considered “smart”. It’s better to really be smart rather than just to be told that you are smart because you agree with everyone.

Filed under: News, AAAS, Academic Freedom, Atheism, Catholic Church, Classroom, Climate Change, Darwinism, Dogma, Economy, Education, Galileo, Global Warming, Industry, Leftism, Naturalism, Religion, Science, Secularism, Socialism, Student, Teach the Controversy, Teacher, Technology, Tennessee

Tennessee legislature passes academic freedom bill 72-23

Central United States

From Evolution News.

Excerpt:

By a vote of 72-23, Tennessee’s House of Representatives today passed an academic freedom bill that would protect teachers and school districts who wish to promote critical thinking and objective discussion about controversial science issues such as biological evolution, climate change and human cloning.

“This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers to fully and objectively discuss controversial scientific topics, like evolution,” said Casey Luskin, science education expert and policy analyst at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. Mr. Luskin continued:

Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven’t read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from their goal to censor dissenting scientific views.

The bill expressly states that it…

…shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine.

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

The Tennessee State Senate previously passed the bill with overwhelming bi-partisan support. The Tennessee bill is similar to an academic freedom policy adopted in 2008 by Louisiana, known as the Louisiana Science Education Act.

Wow! It’s now possible to make scientific criticisms of Darwinism and global warming socialism in the classroom without being prosecuted by the secular left. Well, at least in Louisiana and Tennessee.

Filed under: News, ABC, Bias, Broadcast News, Campaign Contribution, CBS, Classroom, CNN, Contributions, Creation, Creationism, Darwinism, Donate, Donations, Drive-By Media, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Journalism, Left-Wing Bias, Left-Wing Media, Mainstream Media, Media Bias, MSNBC, NBC, News Media, Origins, Poll, Religion, Report, Research, School, Science, Student, Study, Survey, Teach the Controversy, Teacher

Tennessee Senate passes academic freedom bill with bipartisan support

Central United States

From Evolution News.

Excerpt:

On Monday, an academic freedom bill, SB 893, passed the Tennessee State Senate by avote of 25-8. The bill enjoyed bipartisan support from all the Republicans, and over 35% of Democrats, in the Tennessee State Senate. The proposed legislation is a standard academic freedom bill that would apply generally to the teaching of controversial scientific theories, not just evolution. It contains the following good language:

• “The teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education may cause debate and disputation including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

• “Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrators, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrators shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education.”

• “This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”

Thus, the bill includes a clear statement that it only applies to teaching science and does not protect teaching religion. Don’t expect that to satisfy critics, who will predictably ignore the actual language of the bill and falsely claim it would introduce religion in the classroom.

Make sure you read that part in bold, because it’s not going to be reported in the media that way. They’ll report the exact opposite of what the bill says, and probably mention Noah’s Ark. In fact, they already have done so.

Naturally, the Darwinism/global warming cult is not happy about students being allowed to ask questions and debate the scientific merits of controversial theories:

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is already mocking SB 893 as the “Tennessee monkey bill”– reminiscent of the law passed in the 1920s that criminalized the teaching of evolution in Tennessee, leading to the Scopes trial. However, the situation is the reverse of what it was in the 1920s. Today, Darwin-skeptics are the ones fighting for intellectual freedom, while Darwin-promoters try to squash and censor opposing views. The NCSE’s “monkey bill” comparison is completely inapt: the effect of this bill would be to bring more, not less, instruction on evolution into the classroom. That’s precisely why the Darwin lobbyists don’t like it. It would allow students to learn the scientific weaknesses in biological evolution in addition to the strengths.

If secularism stands for anything, it stands for indoctrination and restricting free inquiry. They don’t like debates. They get very uncomfortable with disagreement and different opinions. They want uniformity of thought.

Filed under: News, ABC, Bias, Broadcast News, Campaign Contribution, CBS, Classroom, CNN, Contributions, Creation, Creationism, Darwinism, Donate, Donations, Drive-By Media, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Journalism, Left-Wing Bias, Left-Wing Media, Mainstream Media, Media Bias, MSNBC, NBC, News Media, Origins, Poll, Religion, Report, Research, School, Science, Student, Study, Survey, Teach the Controversy, Teacher

Media bias on display in reporting of Tennessee Academic Freedom Bill

Courtesy of Evolution News, here’s the text of the bill.

Excerpt:

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

And here’s how it was reported by the secular leftist mainstream media: (links removed)

• The Guardian writes that the bill “comes at a time when science associations are increasingly concerned by moves to inject religious or ideological beliefs into science teaching…”
• The Huffington Post has two pieces, one with the outlandish title “Tennessee Science Bill Allowing Discussion of Creationism in Schools Passes State Senate,” and another that states the bill would bring “religious doctrine within the public school system.”
• OpposingViews.com carries a piece titled “Tennessee Bill to Push Creationism in Schools,” which states: “Tennessee lawmakers have revived a scary bill that would open the door to promotion of creationism in public schools.”
• The Times Daily, a Tennessee paper, has an op-ed claiming the bill is ”a ploy to subvert science in favor of theology” where “Critics of the bills say the door is being opened in Tennessee schools for teaching religious views.”
• And the far-left ThinkProgress.org has a sky-is-falling piece stating: “Critics call it a ‘monkey bill’ that promotes creationism in classrooms.”

Let’s review the research on media bias, so we understand how unreliable the mainstream media can be.

What research tells us about media bias

Here’s an example of media bias:

Is it rare? Or does it happen all the time?

Here’s a UCLA study on media bias.

Excerpt:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” CNN’s “NewsNight With Aaron Brown” and ABC’s “Good Morning America” were a close second and third.

“Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill,” Groseclose said. “If these newscasters weren’t centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators.”

The fourth most centrist outlet was “Special Report With Brit Hume” on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC’s “World News Tonight” and NBC’s “Nightly News” to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

“If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox’s ‘Special Report’ as ABC’s ‘World News’ and NBC’s ‘Nightly News,’ then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news,” said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.”

Here’s a Harvard University study on media bias.

Excerpt:

The programming studied on Fox News offered a somewhat more positive picture… of Republicans and more negative one of Democrats compared with other media outlets. Fox News stories about a Republican candidate were most likely to be neutral (47%), with the remainder more positive than negative (32% vs. 21% negative). The bulk of that positive coverage went to Giuliani (44% positive), while McCain still suffered from unflattering coverage (20% positive vs. 35% negative).

When it came to Democratic candidates, the picture was more negative. Again, neutral stories had a slight edge (39%), followed by 37% negative and 24% positive. And, in marked contrast from the rest of the media, coverage of Obama was twice as negative as positive: 32% negative vs. 16% positive and 52% neutral.

But any sense here that the news channel was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data.”

From the Daily Caller, a study of the political contributions made by the mainstream media.

Excerpt:

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last week when it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

The News Corp. donation prompted Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association and son of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to demand in a letter to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes that the cable news outlet include a disclaimer in its coverage of gubernatorial campaigns. Fox News is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.

And more from a study done by the radically leftist MSNBC.

Excerpt:

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The donors include CNN’s Guy Raz, now covering the Pentagon for NPR, who gave to Kerry the same month he was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq; New Yorker war correspondent George Packer; a producer for Bill O’Reilly at Fox; MSNBC TV host Joe Scarborough; political writers at Vanity Fair; the editor of The Wall Street Journal’s weekend edition; local TV anchors in Washington, Minneapolis, Memphis and Wichita; the ethics columnist at The New York Times; and even MTV’s former presidential campaign correspondent.

And here’s a bit from that same article about The New Yorker:

The last bulwark against bias’s slipping into The New Yorker is the copy department, whose chief editor, Ann Goldstein, gave $500 in October to MoveOn.org, which campaigns for Democrats and against President Bush. “That’s just me as a private citizen,” she said. As for whether donations are allowed, Goldstein said she hadn’t considered it. “I’ve never thought of myself as working for a news organization.”

Those are the facts.

Filed under: News, ABC, Bias, Broadcast News, Campaign Contribution, CBS, Classroom, CNN, Contributions, Creation, Creationism, Darwinism, Donate, Donations, Drive-By Media, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Journalism, Left-Wing Bias, Left-Wing Media, Mainstream Media, Media Bias, MSNBC, NBC, News Media, Origins, Poll, Religion, Report, Research, School, Science, Student, Study, Survey, Teach the Controversy, Teacher