Ben Shapiro Asks: Is Intelligent Design Actually Science? — Transcript

Full transcript

1. 0:00If you go to your Wikipedia page, the
2. 0:01first thing that it says is that you are
3. 0:02the advocate of a pseudo scientific
4. 0:05theory called intelligent design. So,
5. 0:07let's start with a couple of questions
6. 0:09on that. First of all, people suggest
7. 0:10that you are a creationist. What is the
8. 0:12difference between intelligent design,
9. 0:13the argument for intelligent design, and
10. 0:15creationism?
11. 0:16>> Right. Well, creationism
12. 0:19holds that
13. 0:20it takes the Bible as the basis of the
14. 0:23the theory. So, creationism is a is an
15. 0:25interpretation or a deduction from
16. 0:27religious authority, whereas intelligent
17. 0:30design is an inference from biological
18. 0:32and physical cosmological evidence. So,
19. 0:34the one starts from the data of the
20. 0:36natural world, the other starts from
21. 0:37scripture. The other The other
22. 0:39difference is that most creationists
23. 0:42hold to a view that the earth is very
24. 0:44young.
25. 0:45It was created maybe 10,000 years ago or
26. 0:47something like that.
27. 0:48Um ID itself is an age-neutral theory,
28. 0:51but most of us hold the the standard
29. 0:53ancient dates for the universe and for
30. 0:56life. So, and the and planet Earth. So,
31. 0:59I'm an old Earth guy.
32. 1:00>> So, so the the the case that that is
33. 1:02generally made against intelligent
34. 1:03design is the idea that it's not a
35. 1:04scientific theory. So, is intelligent
36. 1:07design the the idea that there was
37. 1:09somebody, you don't actually say God,
38. 1:10but but something, there was some
39. 1:11intelligent force that moved the
40. 1:13universe, that that created life on
41. 1:15Earth, that was responsible in your book
42. 1:17for the Cambrian explosion. How is this
43. 1:19a scientific theory as opposed to just
44. 1:21as maybe Richard Dawkins would say, a
45. 1:23God of the gaps argument?
46. 1:24>> Well, one of the things I did when I
47. 1:25first set off to grad school, I I my my
48. 1:27story is that I was encountered this uh
49. 1:30information argument. One of the the
50. 1:32most extraordinary discoveries of 20th
51. 1:34century biology is that at the
52. 1:36foundation of life is information in a
53. 1:38digital form. The DNA molecule stores
54. 1:41information in a four-character digital
55. 1:43code. And the this discovery of Watson
56. 1:47and Crick in the '50s has over time
57. 1:49created an impasse in both chemical
58. 1:51evolutionary theory, which is which are
59. 1:53the theories about the origin of the
60. 1:54first life, and theories of biological
61. 1:56evolution as well, which are theories
62. 1:58about how you get new forms of life from
63. 2:00pre-existing forms, because to build
64. 2:01anything in in biology, you've got to
65. 2:03have code. You've got to have
66. 2:04information. So, I became fascinated
67. 2:06with that question and the possibility
68. 2:08that the the information at the
69. 2:10foundation of life was actually an
70. 2:11indicator of the activity of mind of a
71. 2:13of an intelligence. And but to determine
72. 2:16whether or not that argument could be
73. 2:17formulated scientifically, I had to dig
74. 2:20in a little deeper into how scientists
75. 2:22go about reasoning about these origins
76. 2:24questions about events in the remote
77. 2:26past. And oddly, one of the people most
78. 2:29helpful to me in that was Charles Darwin
79. 2:30himself. Because in the 19th century, he
80. 2:32and his mentor, Charles Lyell, the great
81. 2:34geologist, developed a method for
82. 2:36investigating historical scientific
83. 2:38questions. And they had a principle of
84. 2:40reasoning they called the vera causa
85. 2:42principle or the idea that if you want
86. 2:44to explain an event in the remote past,
87. 2:46you should posit an event or a cause
88. 2:49which is known to have the powers to
89. 2:50produce the effect in question.
90. 2:52And as I began to think about that, I
91. 2:54realized that it was possible to
92. 2:55formulate a case for intelligent design
93. 2:58in a strictly scientific manner and
94. 2:59using the method of of Lyell and Darwin.
95. 3:01Because as we think about the origin of
96. 3:03information, the one thing we know is
97. 3:04that it always arises from an
98. 3:06intelligent source, whether we're
99. 3:07talking about a hieroglyphic inscription
100. 3:09or a paragraph in a book or
101. 3:11um
102. 3:12information embedded in a radio signal.
103. 3:14Whenever you find information,
104. 3:15especially if it's in a digital or
105. 3:17alphabetic form, you trace it back to
106. 3:18its source, you always come to a mind,
107. 3:20not a material process. So, using the
108. 3:22same scientific method of reasoning that
109. 3:24Darwin used, I came to a different
110. 3:26non-Darwinian conclusion, which was that
111. 3:28there is evidence of intelligent design,
112. 3:30not just what the Darwinians call
113. 3:32apparent design in the history of life.
114. 3:33So, if if our theory is unscientific,
115. 3:35the Darwinian theory would be as well,
116. 3:37but I think both are scientific. I just
117. 3:39argue for one and and critique the
118. 3:40other.
119. 3:41>> So, the philosopher of science, Karl
120. 3:42Popper, has suggested that science is
121. 3:43basically that which can be falsified.
122. 3:45So, what evidence would have to arise
123. 3:48for the theory of intelligent design to
124. 3:50be falsified?
125. 3:51>> You would have to find an undirected
126. 3:52process that was that was capable of
127. 3:54producing information beyond a threshold
128. 3:57that we
129. 3:59have defined mathematically. There's a
130. 4:00There's a amount of information that
131. 4:02might arise by chance based on what are
132. 4:04called the probabilistic
133. 4:06resources of the universe. But if you
134. 4:07get beyond that from an undirected
135. 4:09process, that would falsify our claim
136. 4:10that only mind can produce that amount
137. 4:12of information. Um there's also other
138. 4:15ways of conceiving of what makes
139. 4:17something a good scientific theory
140. 4:19rather than Popper's idea. It's been
141. 4:20critiqued by philosophers of science.
142. 4:22Typically, a more
143. 4:24more popular view among philosophers of
144. 4:26science is that what scientists are
145. 4:27really doing is they're making
146. 4:28inferences to the best explanation. And
147. 4:30that's how I framed the argument in
148. 4:32Darwin's Doubt and in Signature in the
149. 4:34Cell for Intelligent Design. Um the a
150. 4:36best explanation would be one that
151. 4:38posits a cause which is known to produce
152. 4:41the effect in question. And in the best
153. 4:43of cases where there's only one known
154. 4:45such cause, and that's the kind of
155. 4:47argument I make for intelligent design
156. 4:48that only intelligence, only mind is
157. 4:51capable of generating the amount of
158. 4:52information needed for these big jumps
159. 4:54in biological complexity in the history
160. 4:56of life.
161. 4:56>> So in the history of science and the
162. 4:57philosophy of science, there's been this
163. 4:59interesting battle between sort of
164. 5:01religious folks who believe that
165. 5:03religion should stay separate from
166. 5:04science and folks who believe that
167. 5:05religion and science are are
168. 5:06intertwined. And that
169. 5:09on the one side you have sort of the
170. 5:10Thomas Aquinas that that God and nature
171. 5:12speak in the same language. And on the
172. 5:13other side, you have the William of
173. 5:15Ockham argument that basically God can
174. 5:17do whatever he wants. And so what we
175. 5:19don't want is a theory of science that
176. 5:21can disprove God. And the flip side of
177. 5:23that is sort of Stephen J. Gould's
178. 5:24non-overlapping magisteria argument that
179. 5:26science handles this stuff and religion
180. 5:27handles this stuff and there's no
181. 5:28crossover. So where does intelligent
182. 5:30design lie in in that gap?
183. 5:32>> That's a really great question. There's
184. 5:33There's basically There's basically
185. 5:35three different approaches to the inter-
186. 5:37interface between science and and
187. 5:39religious belief. One is the idea that
188. 5:41the two are in conflict, and that was
189. 5:42the kind of dominant view that came out
190. 5:43of the late 19th century. Most
191. 5:45historians of science now reject that as
192. 5:47very simplistic. Another view is the the
193. 5:49the Stephen J. Gould view is that
194. 5:50science and faith are in occupy
195. 5:53non-overlapping realms of inquiry.
196. 5:56Uh the Galileo aphorism was
197. 5:59science
198. 6:00tells you
199. 6:01how the planets go, not how to how to go
200. 6:03to heaven. You know, or how the heavens
201. 6:05go, not how to go to heaven.
202. 6:07But
203. 6:09the theory of intelligent design I think
204. 6:10shows that that's also simplistic. There
205. 6:13are many scientific questions and
206. 6:14religious questions that are completely
207. 6:15separate. But there are some there are
208. 6:17some there are some questions that both
209. 6:19science and religion speak to. And my
210. 6:22view is that when they speak to the same
211. 6:24questions in the same way, that there is
212. 6:26actually far more agreement than people
213. 6:28realize. In fact, substantial agreement.
214. 6:31For example, the origin of the universe
215. 6:33we now know
216. 6:34had a beginning. Or the universe had a
217. 6:36beginning.
218. 6:37And this is one of the first words of
219. 6:39the biblical text that there was a
220. 6:41beginning. So that's a point of
221. 6:42agreement about the same the same issue.
222. 6:44Did the Was is the universe finite or
223. 6:46infinite? Both science and religion are
224. 6:47now telling us the same thing. That that
225. 6:50the universe had a beginning.
226. 6:51Intelligent design is telling us that
227. 6:53life and the universe were designed. And
228. 6:55that's something that you would also
229. 6:56find affirmed in the theistic religious
230. 6:59traditions. So that's a point of
231. 7:00agreement about a special question about
232. 7:03in this case about origin the origins of
233. 7:05of life. So
234. 7:07I don't say that science and religion
235. 7:08talk they have many areas of specialized
236. 7:10inquiry that different questions that
237. 7:12each address, but there are overlapping
238. 7:14areas of interest. And increasingly what
239. 7:16we found is that there's there is
240. 7:18increasing agreement as we understand
241. 7:20the science better. And as we get better
242. 7:22more sophisticated biblical
243. 7:23interpretation sometimes as well.
244. 7:25>> One of the the biggest probably the
245. 7:27biggest argument against intelligent
246. 7:29design obviously is made by the new
247. 7:30atheists. And the new it's fascinating
248. 7:32to watch the the crossover between
249. 7:34neo-Darwinian thinkers and new atheists.
250. 7:35They basically are the same group of
251. 7:37people.
252. 7:37>> group of people.
253. 7:38>> So so it seems to me that
254. 7:40>> No no surprise because I I and Dawkins
255. 7:42said you know that
256. 7:43Darwinism makes it possible to be an
257. 7:45intellectually fulfilled atheism or
258. 7:46atheist. And also the Darwinian view,
259. 7:49the strictly Darwinian view is not just
260. 7:51the idea of evolution as change over
261. 7:52time, but the idea of an undirected,
262. 7:54unguided process that produced the
263. 7:56appearance but not the the reality of
264. 7:58design. So they see nature essentially
265. 8:01as being a self-creating entity that can
266. 8:04produce all the wonders of and
267. 8:06intricacies of living organisms without
268. 8:08any guiding hand whatsoever. And so that
269. 8:11that lends itself to a strictly
270. 8:12materialistic or atheistic worldview.
271. 8:15>> Well, people have suggested that
272. 8:16intelligent design advocates are
273. 8:18anti-evolution, that they they don't
274. 8:19believe in the theory of evolution. So
275. 8:21what does the theory of evolution say to
276. 8:23start, and then what in it is is an
277. 8:26argument too far?
278. 8:27>> That's that's a great question. Uh
279. 8:29this is the term evolution is a term
280. 8:31that has multiple meanings. So if you
281. 8:33want to avoid the fallacy of
282. 8:34equivocation, it's really good to define
283. 8:36terms right from the beginning. So first
284. 8:38meaning is change over time. Uh
285. 8:39basically uh and and that that can mean
286. 8:41a couple different things itself. It can
287. 8:43refer to the small-scale variation that
288. 8:45we see with things like the Galapagos
289. 8:46finches where their beaks get a little
290. 8:47bigger or a little smaller in response
291. 8:49to varying weather conditions. It can
292. 8:51also refer to the fact that life on the
293. 8:53planet today is different than it was in
294. 8:55the period of the Jurassic when you had
295. 8:58the dinosaurs roaming the earth or in
296. 8:59the Cambrian when you had trilobites.
297. 9:01We've had change in the representation
298. 9:03of life forms over time in the fossil
299. 9:04record. Nobody doubts either of those
300. 9:06meanings of evolution. Second big
301. 9:08meaning of evolution is the idea that
302. 9:10all forms of life are connected by
303. 9:12common ancestry back to a single
304. 9:14ancestral form, a single one-celled
305. 9:16organism. So Darwin represented that
306. 9:18idea with his concept of the tree of
307. 9:20life. That's an idea of evolution that's
308. 9:23consistent with the idea of intelligent
309. 9:25design. Those many intelligent design
310. 9:27proponents and others other scientists,
311. 9:29including evolutionary biologists, are
312. 9:31getting increasingly skeptical about it
313. 9:32because there's so much evidence of
314. 9:34discontinuity in the fossil record and
315. 9:36discontinuity in in the in the study of
316. 9:38of genomics, where where we have things
317. 9:40like orphan genes, which are
318. 9:42big classes of genes that are
319. 9:44unique to certain taxa and don't show
320. 9:47any similarity to to other genes
321. 9:49anywhere else in the in the in the in
322. 9:52the genomic databases. So, you have this
323. 9:55sense of you know, genetic information
324. 9:57popping into existence in different
325. 9:59classes of organisms, discontinuity.
326. 10:01Third meaning of evolution is the one
327. 10:03though that's really that's that's
328. 10:04really contentious. And that's the idea
329. 10:06that that natural selection and random
330. 10:08mutation are sufficient to produce all
331. 10:11the new forms of life and the appearance
332. 10:13of design that living forms manifest.
333. 10:15So, it's an unguided process that
334. 10:17produces the appearance but not the
335. 10:19reality of design. And that's the that's
336. 10:21the meaning of evolution that the theory
337. 10:22of intelligent design is challenging.
338. 10:24There are some intelligent design
339. 10:25proponents may be skeptical about common
340. 10:27descent, others are not, but it's that
341. 10:29third meaning that unites us and and and
342. 10:32and it's what the theory of intelligent
343. 10:33design is about. We're challenging the
344. 10:35idea that purely undirected processes
345. 10:37can produce the complexity
346. 10:40or the information necessary to build
347. 10:41the complexity of living organisms.