The Daily Signal - Stephen Meyer on The Case for Intelligent Design

Episode Date: August 16, 2023

Science and the theory of intelligent design go hand in hand, says Stephen Meyer, author of the book "Return of the God Hypothesis." The "God hypothesis," Meyer says, is the "idea that the postulation of a transcendent intelligence, who is also active in the creation, provides a better explanation, causal explanation, for the origin of the big things we've discovered about biological and cosmological origins." Meyer, who also directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, has dedicated his career to proving that our world wasn't created by accident but by the hand of God through intelligent design. He uses philosophy and science to make his case. Meyer joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to discuss his journey into investigating the origins of the universe. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The God hypothesis, in the way I framed it, is simply the idea that the postulation of a transcendent intelligence who is also active in the creation provides a better explanation, causal explanation, for the origin of the big things we've discovered about biological and cosmological origins. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, August 16th. I'm Virginia Allen. And that was Stephen Meyer, Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science. Does science make the case for intelligent design? According to Dr. Meyer, it does.

Meyer has dedicated his life to proving that our world was created by God, and he uses philosophy and science to do just that. Dr. Meyer is also director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, and author of many books, and he joins us here on the show today to share some of his research and discovery. he's made on just why there's such a strong case for intelligent design in our universe. Stay tuned for our conversation, but first, I want to tell you all about another great podcast from right here at the Heritage Foundation and the Daily Signal. Conservative women are problematic

women. Why? Because we don't adhere to the agenda of the radical left. Every Thursday morning on the Problematic Women podcast, Kristen I-Cammer, Lauren Evans, and me, Virginia Allen, are joined by other conservative women to break down the big issues and news that you care about. Whether you're interested in hot takes and conservative pop culture or what Congress is up to, problematic women has you covered. We sort through the news to keep you up to date on the issues that are of particular interest to conservative leaning or problematic women. You can find problematic women wherever you listen to podcasts and make sure you follow the show on Instagram. It is my pleasure today to be joined by Steve Meyer.

Dr. Meyer has his doctorate in both philosophy of science and history. Dr. Meyer has written multiple books, including Return of the God Hypothesis and New York Times bestseller Darwin's Doubt. He is also a director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. Dr. Meyer, thank you so much for your time today. I'm delighted to be here. A great couple days at Heritage. Yeah, I know you've been getting around.

Well, I'm calling today's interview a teaser trailer for your interview with Joe Rogan. We have about 20 minutes today. I think you had about three hours and 20 minutes with Joe Rogan. But loved and really enjoyed your conversation with him and definitely encourage our listeners to check that out. But I want to begin today by asking you just to share a little bit of your own background and how you personally got so fast. fascinated in just this question of how did the world come to be? And was that something that you kind of started asking at a young age? Or where along the lines did you decide, okay, this is a question that not only I want to pursue, but I want to make it my life's purpose to answer this question. Well, that's kind of you'd ask. Yeah, I was kind of nerdy little kid. At four, I was fascinated with dinosaurs.

And remember burying chicken bones in the backyard so I could dig them up. up and pretend that I had made a major paleontological find. My sister, who's a nurse, just always cracks up laughing at the silly things her nerdly older brother did. But I was very interested in big philosophical questions, but I majored in physics and geology. So I took a minor in philosophy in college. So I was always interested in the intersection of science and philosophy. The questions that science raised that were philosophical in nature, like for the, like for example, the origin of the universe or the origin of life. And in early in my scientific career, I attended a conference that was showcasing top scientists who had competing worldviews, those who were materialists

or atheists on one side, and those who were theists, God believers of some kind on the other. and they were discussing at this conference three great big philosophical questions at the intersection of science and philosophy. They were the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the nature and origin of human consciousness. And so I found out about this conference, kind of late in the game, attended it on a bit of a whim, and ended up meeting some people that became mentors for me. And a year later, I was off to grad school in England. to pursue work on the question of the origin of life, origin of life biology, and I did that within an interdisciplinary history and philosophy of science program. And the deeper I got into it,

the more I liked it, the more I was hooked. So many people I knew that were doing PhDs were within a year or two really bored with their subjects because the nature of PhD work is you have to go very deep on a very narrow subject. And I just never got bored with what I was doing and still and spent a lot of years post-PHD writing about the different facets of that debate. Yeah, well, and it is so multifaceted. When you first heard the argument for intelligent design, what were your thoughts? What was your reaction? Were you hooked right away and thought, oh, yes, this is the truth, or did it take quite a bit of

time? I was super intrigued because I was working as an oil company geophysicist when I heard this panel discussion about the origin of life problem. And what fascinated me, which I had not known, was that the whole discipline of what's called origin of life biology or the theory of chemical evolution or sometimes called evolutionary abiogenesis, how you get from the chemicals in the supposed prebiotic soup or environment to the first living cell, the theories about that transition were not working. And people on both sides of the, of the, this worldview divide accepted that we do not have an adequate theory of the origin of life.

We don't have an adequate evolutionary theory. And one of the scientists that I heard at the conference that I first attended about this at that conference repudiated his own work on chemical evolution, explained that his own theory didn't work, even though it was the best-selling advanced college-level textbook on the idea of how we, on how science could explain the origin of life. And at that time talked about the possibility that what we're actually looking at in life is evidence of some kind of intelligent cause, as he put it, because what we're finding inside living cells is not just chemistry, but code.

We find digital code in the DNA molecule, and that code is providing the instruction set for building the proteins and protein machines that keep living cells alive. So you have digital information directing the construction of literally molecular machines. So it's a lot like our CAD-CAM technology that we use in modern factories where digital information directs the construction of, say, an airplane wing or something. And so this particular scientist's name is Dean Kenyon, been a leader in the field of chemical evolutionary studies, and he repudiated his own theory and suggested that it was time, as he put it for the question of design to be reopened. The question of, I think he called it, the question of natural theology to be reopened. What can we tell about the reality of God from nature?

And so I thought that was pretty fascinating. And there were other scientists who were defending that same point of view. I wasn't convinced yet, but I was intrigued because I was working with a, in a field, it was seismic digital processing for an oil company, but it was an early form of information technology. And so I was really fascinated with the idea that the fundamental reason for the impasse in this field is people couldn't explain the origin of information. And that's what I got interested in. Have you found that more and more scientists are holding space or kind of asking that question of,

do we need to consider intelligent design? Have there been just more conversations or maybe more openness, you think, maybe within the past decade in the scientific community, to actually say, okay, there might be an intelligent designer? Yeah. There was a famous court trial in 2005, and there was an ill-formed public school board policy that was trying to insert intelligent design into the curricular discussion. And we advised the school board against the policy, but they didn't listen to us, and it was sort of a train wreck.

And so there was a kind of a post-dover Pennsylvania. That's where the trial was held. The staunch Darwinians were saying it's over after Dover. intelligent design has been refuted, et cetera. In the last decade, I would say that the momentum is almost entirely on our side in this argument. And there have been very high-level scientific conversions to our point of view. For example, a German paleontologist named Gunter Beckley reached out to us. He was the curator in 2009 of the bicentennial exhibition celebrating Darwin's life and work at the largest natural history museum in Europe. He made a display to kind of mock

the idea of intelligent design. He had a scale of justice. And on one side, he had the book, The Origin of Species. On the other side, he had a stack of books advocating intelligent design. And he had the scale go down on the Darwin side and with a caption that said,

the one book that outweighs them all. And his colleagues challenged him. He said, Gunter, if you're going to mock the ID people, you better read their books because you're our spokesman and you might get asked about it by the media. So he did. And he said, that was his mistake. He's now a staunch proponent of intelligent design.

He's a first-rate paleontologist. And there have been many other leading scientists of that rank who are either publicly or quietly expressing their support. And I think on the flip side, the publishing genre known as the New Atheism that was so popular in 2007, maybe up until about 2015, is really kind of a spent force.

And I think they overplayed their hand. They did a beautiful job of framing the issue, issue. Richard Dawkins says, who is the most famous of the new atheist, said that the universe we observe has exactly the properties we should expect. If at bottom, there's no purpose, no design, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. But then two summers ago, when he encountered an animation of the DNA replication system, the way in which the DNA copies itself, it's part of the larger information processing system in the cell. He said he was knocked sideways with wonder at the sophistication of this digital information processing system. Nobody from a materialistic perspective expected evidence for that level of sophisticated information processing in the so-called simple cell, nor did they expect in physics the evidence of what's called the fine-tuning, the exquisite and highly improbable fine-tuning of all the different physical parameters that make life in the universe possible. And none of the scientific materialists coming out of the late 19th century expected

there to be evidence for the universe itself, the physical universe of matter, space, time, and energy itself having a beginning. And these are three huge discoveries in cosmology, physics, and biology that I think challenge the materialistic consensus and have implications that support not only intelligent design, but I would also argue and have argued in my latest book, a the theistic version of the intelligent design hypothesis, what I call the God hypothesis. So I think theism has a tremendous explanatory power with respect to what we've learned in physics, cosmology, and biology about these big origins questions. And I think a lot of scientists are seeing that, and a lot of people are communicating with us about

their interest in this, and people at a very high level. You mentioned your latest book, The Return to the God Hypothesis. What is the God Hypothesis? Well, the God Hypothesis, in the way I framed it, is simply the idea that the postulation of a transcendent intelligence who is also active in the creation, provides a better explanation, causal explanation, for the origin of the big things we've discovered about biological and cosmological origins. If we think about the evidence that we have in cosmology that points a beginning for the universe, if matter, space, time, and energy have a beginning, then before that, whatever that means,

there was no matter to do the causing. So if you think of competing worldviews, We're now talking more about competing metaphysical or worldview hypotheses. Theism provides a better explanation for the origin of the physical universe at a finite point in time because before that point of time, there was no physical universe and therefore no matter to do the causing. And so materialism as a worldview is causally inadequate. It's not capable of providing an explanation. It doesn't cite a cause that could explain the origin of the universe. And so as you look at the origin of the universe, it's fine-tuning, and the origin of the information needed to build life.

In each case you have strong evidence for the activity of a mind or something at least immaterial that's at work in the origin of those different physical or biological systems. And so the God hypothesis is simply the affirmation that theism has unique explanatory power with respect to the big things we've discovered about biological and cosmological origins. Fascinating. Why do you think that for so long the scientific community has been resistant to belief in God and to that theory of intelligent design? Well, this is part of the kind of the narrative arc of the book, if you will, and I think the story of science since its modern inception, historians of science talk about the scientific revolution, a period of time in which science in its modern form, with its very systematic methods of investigating nature gets going. And that's in roughly the 16th and 17th century. I think it probably the revolution stretches back a bit further.

But it's a period of time when science gets going, but it arises in a Judeo-Christian milieu in Western Europe. And interestingly, when you study the history of science, it's clear when you study what people were thinking, when you talk about Newton or Boyle or Kepler, the great scientists of that period were thinking within a Judeo-Christian framework of thought. And so it wasn't just that science started incidentally in a Judeo-Christian worldview. It started for Judeo-Christian reasons.

One of those was the idea of intelligibility that nature could be understood by human beings, if we studied it carefully, because our minds were made in the image of the rational creator who built the universe in a rational way. so there was a principle of correspondence. We have rationality that's been given to us so we can understand the rational structure of the universe with its laws and its evident design and so forth. And that gave scientists confidence to study nature,

to think that there was a secret there that could be revealed by careful study. And it was one of many Judeo or even Christian or biblical assumptions that informed the scientific enterprise. That's lost in the late 19th century largely, with by the end of the 19th century you have a whole series of theories about origins that suggests that undirected natural processes can explain everything from the origin of the solar system to the origin of new forms of life to the origin of the first life to even the origin of human beings

and so by the end of the 19th century there's a kind of new worldview consensus emerging out of science among a lot of elite scientists, and that scholars call scientific materialism. And that's the default worldview that most scientists inherit at the beginning of the 20th century. And the story of my book is the story of three great discoveries

that challenge that scientific materialist consensus on scientific grounds. And so that's the reversal. And so I think the reason that so many scientists have been resistant, And this was a, that scientific materialism was a kind of default way of thinking that scientists inherited coming out of the late 19th century with figures like Darwin, Marx, Freud, Laplace, Huxley. Most of the great figures of the late 19th century were in early 20th were scientific materials. They had a worldview.

In addition to their scientific studies, they had a worldview framework in which they understood those studies. And that was very much materialistic or naturalistic. When you're speaking to, let's say a college student, someone that is not a scientist or a philosopher, but they're an atheist, what do you ask them to consider as you talk to them about the origins of the universe? Well, I think worldview is really a critical concept here because we all have kind of a default philosophy that we carry around in our heads. and sometimes those philosophies are coherent. Sometimes they're a mish-mash of different ideas. We might be a little bit new age. We might be a little bit woke.

We might be a little bit deistic. We might have some combination of, you know, Eastern and Western thought. Or we might have a very coherent materialistic or theistic or deistic worldview. And so typically I like to know, you know, if I'm trying to persuade someone to think the way I think, or persuade someone to think that maybe there might be a God or a creator, the first thing I want to know is what they're thinking.

What is their perspective on all that? And what are their reasons for rejecting such belief if they do? And oftentimes what we found in probing with young people, including with some formal surveys that we've done, is that science or the perceived message of science, is still playing an outsized role in causing younger people to reject belief. in God. And so one survey we commissioned found that 65% of young atheists believe that science makes, renders belief in God less probable. And so if that's one of the reasons that people have

for resisting belief in God or rejecting it, then often I like to offer some of the evidence that I present in the book itself because I think the evidence is actually very strong. Excellent. Now, For those listening, how can they keep up with your work? Because I know that you are constantly doing more research and just putting out amazing material. How can we keep up with what you're doing? Well, our staff at Discovery Institute has created a really nice website for me that's just loaded with content. It's called Return of the God Hypothesis.com or you can go simply to discovery.org. But the Return of the God Hypothesis.com website has a playlist of

video interviews, debates that I've done, animations of the little miniature machines you find in cells, the digital code in the DNA, and op-ed articles. Last summer I was fortunate to have a piece published in Newsweek, 900 words getting the chance to make the case, talking about the three main pieces of evidence that are supporting belief in God. So all that stuff is sort of compiled there, and it's a great gateway into this subject. We have, you know, we've had lots of wonderful conversations with people who have a different point of view, and I enjoy those conversations as much or more as conversations with people who agree with me. So it's always fun to have those discussions. That is neat.

Well, I certainly encourage all of our listeners to check out your work at the Discovery Institute and to pick up a copy of the book, The Return of the God Hypothesis, and many of your other books as well. And also to keep up with what you're doing across. You know, so many different fields and just really, really appreciate your time today. Also encourage folks to check out your interview on the Joe Rogan podcast if they want to go much deeper than we went today. But really appreciate your time, Dr. Meyer.

Well, thank you very much, Virginia. I really enjoyed being here at Heritage for a couple days. It's such an impressive place. Oh, it's been a pleasure to have you. Great. Okay. Thank you. And that's going to do it for today's Wednesday episode of the Daily Signal podcast.

Thanks so much for being with us. If you have another chance, make sure that you take a moment to take a moment to check out our evening show. We keep you up to date on the news of the day by releasing a top news edition of the show around 5 p.m. every weekday. These are the headlines that you don't want to miss. And if you haven't gotten the chance, make sure you take a moment to subscribe to the Daily Signal podcast wherever you like to listen. We love seeing those five-star ratings and reviews roll in. Have a great rest of your day. We'll see you right back here around 5 p.m. For our top news edition. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million

of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Lewy and Kate Trinco. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheras. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.