Carol Ionone watched Ben Wattenburg's PBS's Think Tank program on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution (Oct. 12, 2006) and wrote the following.
Ben Wattenberg's "Think Tank" had on Stephen Meyer from the Discovery Institute and Darwinian Michael Ruse from Florida State University to discuss Intelligent Design. Ruse kept denying that ID was science, calling it religion or philosophy instead. We are familiar with this refrain. But he offered no specifics. I hold no brief for ID, but why isn’t it scientific to say, as IDers do, that certain biological mechanisms are irreducibly complex (i.e., inexplicable by random mutation and natural selection)? Why aren't the probability models that show that the components of life would take a trillion times the age of the earth to evolve by chance, why aren't they science? Well, the discussion continues next week, so perhaps it will get more specific. But one important thing, Meyer said that IDers are not asking that ID be taught whole in science classes (that was an unfortunate, not to say disastrous, misstep on the part of the Dover, Pennsylvania school board). Meyer said the idea is that Darwin be taught along with the criticisms of Darwin. That sounds reasonable. What's wrong with that? For example, first tell students that Darwin hypothesized that it all comes from chance, and then give them some of the models showing the probability of certain life substances evolving by chance. (And then, for fun, tell them to read Ann Coulter's hilarious section on evolution in "Godless.")
Once again, the full transcript is here.
On an earlier post I referred to a 2005 video featuring Dr. Loren Haarsma speaking on Is Intelligent Design "Scientific"? His lecture handout has also been made available. Haarsma distinguishes and comments on three aspects of Intelligent Design -- the scientific, the philosophical and the religious. Helpful.
In a still earlier post, I wrote the following:
On the current debate concerning Intelligent Design, a sure-footed guide can be found in Nancy Pearcey. Her book Total Truth, has a major section laying out the case for Intelligent Design. She has stayed on top of the discussion and has written an article that takes account of the criticisms leveled by people such as George Will, Charles Krauthammer and others. In this article she offers five reasons why intelligent design will win in the end. Also worth checking out is her article, "Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper". She previously wrote one of the clearest introductions to science I have ever read, The Soul of Science plus she co-wrote with Chuck Colson How Now Shall We Live? She and her husband have an important website, The Pearcey Report, which gathers news and offers commentary.