Atheist defends intelligent design - and I gather he's pretty good

Below are links to the Discovery Institute's five podcasts of University of Colorado (Boulder) professor of the philosophy of physics Bradley Monton - who is an atheist - on why the universe might show evidence of design. Monton teamed up with another skeptic of religion, mathematician David Berlinski, against materialist atheist Lawrence Krauss and British theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander, to defend the design of the universe as an intellectually worthy idea (not just some religious schtick).

Here's more on the debate. And the five pods are linked below.

Well, it's no secret that the intelligent design debate is more nuanced than legacy media portray it.

I suspect that fewer than 200 journalists in the world actually know what the controversy is about.

How can you tell if they do?

First, they realize that the evidence from science does not support current materialist or naturalist or no-design theory. (Shhhh!)

They are not columnists retailing fatuous lines like "There is no conflict between faith and science!"

or

"No creationism is the schools! Darwin explained it all without God. (But (optionally) you can holler your guts out for Jesus anyway. Maybe it is good for evolution if you do."

Often, the same columnist is shouting both slogans, at different times.

Good thing too, because there isn't a 360 degree swivel joint in the human head!

Second, they have actually read and thought about the books written by ID theorists like Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, and Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, which advance a testable thesis.

They have looked beyond the smoke and noise generated by fossil science organizations and the "Christian" scientists who meet with them to plan strategy to prevent considreation of design, purpose, or meaning in the universe. (There is a scandal here, awaiting detailed discovery - rats for me, I am mainly a trade news hack, and may not get in on the best cellar.)

Anyway, here's Monton on design:

Part One

This episode of ID the Future features part one of Casey Luskin's interview with atheist philosopher of physics Bradley Monton, author of a new book on intelligent design. Prof. Monton has a unique perspective of the debate over intelligent design as an atheist who is trying to elevate the debate.

Professor Monton is debating intelligent design and the existence of God this weekend in Fort Worth, TX.

Part Two

This episode of ID the Future features the second part of Casey Luskin's interview with atheist philosopher of physics Bradley Monton.

Prof. Monton shares his experience in the debate over intelligent design and discusses the Dover decision, rebutting trial witness philosopher Robert Pennock.

Prof. Monton has a unique perspective of the debate over intelligent design as an atheist who is trying to elevate the debate. In 2006, he authored a paper on Judge Jones' Kitzmiller ruling, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision."

Part Three

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin continues his interview with atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton. Professor Monton discusses his role in "The Great Debate on Intelligent Design" last weekend. Interestingly, the two presenters on the pro-ID side, including Prof. Monton, were non-theists.

Listen is as Prof. Monton shows that the debate over intelligent design is far more nuanced than most portray it.

Part Four

On this episode of ID the Future, atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton turns the tables on Casey Luskin, putting the question to him about the Dover trial. What is the story of Discovery Institute's involvement in that infamous case? Listen in as Professor Monton asks good questions and gets good answers.

Part Five

This episode of ID the Future features the last in a series of interviews with atheist philosopher of physics Bradley Monton. Professor Monton's perspective enriches and expands the debate over intelligent design, as he discusses whether an ID proponent can be an atheist, the scientific evidence for intelligent design, and the importance of the argument from cosmology.

Professor Monton also shares his experience dealing with Robert Pennock, a Darwinist philosopher of science who had an interesting response when Monton published a paper on the Dover decision, critiquing Pennock. Monton breaks this story for the first time in this interview, but the full tale is told in his forthcoming book, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, (Broadview Press, 2009).

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Bradley Monton: Atheist argues that design is serious scientific theory

Apparently, Bradley Monton has just published a book with Broadview Press:

The doctrine of intelligent design is often the subject of acrimonious debate. Seeking God in Science cuts through the rhetoric that distorts the debates between religious and secular camps. Bradley Monton, a philosopher of science and an atheist, carefully considers the arguments for intelligent design and argues that intelligent design deserves serious consideration as a scientific theory.

Monton also gives a lucid account of the debate surrounding the inclusion of intelligent design in public schools and presents reason why students' science education could benefit from a careful consideration of the arguments for and against it.

I sure hope Monton has tenure. Otherwise, he could end up driving truck for a living.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I once considered it myself, because they really needed stable middle-aged women with small hands to get under the trailer and do some of the fine hitch work - but I knew I didn't have the muscle power. (If you must stomp on a can opener to get it through the lid, you do not have the muscle power for industry. Better stick to freelance journalism, if anyone taught you the trade.)

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with comments

1. I see where Ladd Allen, producer of the Privileged Planet DVD that caused such a ruckus when it was shown at the Smithsonian in 2005, has now come out with Darwin's Dilemma.

Darwin's Dilemma presumably references the sudden Cambrian explosion of complex, multicellular life forms, including vertebrates, the creatures most likely to have intelligence, about half a billion years ago. Note how they talk around the problem here. Darwinists have twisted themselves into pretzels trying to explain how this could happen purely by natural selection acting on random mutation. Darwin started the thing off by suggesting that the explanation was that the fossil record was poor. Well, the fossil record is way better now, and it supports him even less. Not what you expected to hear in the Year of Darwin, eh?

Behind the Scenes With Darwin's Dilemma: An Interview With Producer Lad Allen

On this episode of ID the Future Anika Smith interviews Illustra Media producer Lad Allen on the new film out next week, Darwin's Dilemma. As the third film in the intelligent design trilogy from Illustra Media, Darwin's Dilemma represents a capstone for Allen, who traversed the globe to present the story of Darwin's journey to his theory of evolution and the Cambrian Explosion, the nagging problem for Darwin in the fossil record that has become a crisis for evolution today.

Listen in as Lad Allen shares with us what it's like to shoot on location in four continents and work with scientists like Simon Conway Morris and Stephen Meyer.

Go here to listen.

(Note: The Smithsonian always had a huge problem with the Cambrian explosion because it never supported Darwinism, and their key scientist on the case in the days it first came to public notice attempted to hide the results.)

Here's a video on the explosion:




2. Discovery Jeopardizes Darwinist Argument Against Cambrian Explosion

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin discusses how trails of microorganisms knock down a favorite Darwinist argument against the Cambrian explosion. Listen in as Luskin explains why Darwinists remain stuck — whether they like it or not — with a very explosive Cambrian explosion that isn't the mere artifact of an imperfect fossil record.

Go here to listen.

[From Denyse: In my view, the Cambrian explosion knocked Darwinism through a cocked hat, and Darwin himself knew this all too well. But he had good public relations agents then and now. Earnest folk, happy to front an impossible idea if it keeps materialist atheism alive. What's so telling - and damning - is their sheer defensiveness.

3.

An Atheist Discusses the Scientific Merits of Intelligent Design

On this episode of ID the Future, atheist philosopher Bradley Monton defends intelligent design as science, discussing methodological naturalism and the evidential force of ID with Casey Luskin. Listen in as Professor Monton shares how ID-critic Robert Pennock tried to intimidate him.

Bradley J. Monton, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is author of the new book, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009).

Listen to Part One of this series.

I wonder when Bradley Monton will start to get even more real flak for asking key, rude questions about Darwinism, but then he doesn't yet blog at Uncommon Descent either. Hey, Brad, wanna be bad?

No, but seriously, Darwinism - as it exists today - is a tax-supported cult gone rotten. It attracts people like Pennock who have little to offer except policing the views of others, as he attempted to do with Monton, who sensibly repelled him. That's the principle reason that cults eventually implode - no new ideas, just new PR hacks and new thugs. With the "evolutionary psychology" branch, the stink is finally coming to public attention.

Top Ten books to read on the intelligent design controversy, 2009 #3

3. Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design by Bradley Monton. In the breakthrough book of the year, an atheist professor of the philosophy of physics at a secular university has written a book to defend intelligent design. As Professor Monton would admit, it's a partial defense, as he does not find ID arguments overwhelmingly convincing, but he also does not find them trivial, and he believes they should be allowed on the table and in the classroom for discussion. He even went so far as to defend intelligent design in a public debate in 2008, and his position as a true educator seeking truth has brought the wrath of Darwinists and fellow atheists down on his head. But that did not prevent him from publishing his position in Seeking God in Science. Monton's work on a rigorous definition of intelligent design in chapter one is worth the price of the book alone. The good news is you don't have to be a philosopher to understand this book. Monton has done a great job of making his arguments accessible to the general reader.

[From Denyse: This demonstrates a key point: Design in nature could be correct or incorrect. Darwinists - whose living depends on institutional support for denying design, despite evidence - have laboured long and hard to make design impossible to discuss intelligibly. Once they were reduced to marketing urban folklore about conspiracies to introduce religion into the school system, etc., the way opened for Monton to initiate an intelligent debate.]

Here's a podcast with Monton.

Top Resource #4 is here.

If the universe was designed, it does not follow that your grandmother's superstitions are true

Physicist Bradley Monton, an atheist philosopher of science (University of Colorado Boulder), doesn't seem to mind being in trouble here and here as he looks at the reasons why the universe might show evidence of design. Hey, Bradley.

It's that "life of the mind" thing, right? Don't expect yur local political correctness commissar to understand.

Monton teamed up with another skeptic of religion, mathematician David Berlinski, against materialist atheist Lawrence Krauss and Brit God-hollerer Denis Alexander, to defend the design of the universe as an intellectually worthy idea (not just some religious schtick). Here's more on the debate.

Good for Monton and Berlinski, for clearing sludge out of the way and shame on God-hollerers who maintain it for their own ends.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Straws in the wind: Atheists and agnostics support constructive debate on design

Here's a debate that illustrates the real intelligent design controversy - if anyone wants to know:

Distinguished scientist and professor James M. Tour (pictured) will moderate a debate next month in Texas about intelligent design and evolution featuring four prominent scientists and philosophers. What's interesting is that defending intelligent design are an agnostic who is skeptical of ID and an atheist philosopher. That would be Dr. David Berlinski and Dr. Bradley Monton, respectively. Defending evolution will be British theologian Denis Alexander and well-known physicist Lawrence Krauss.

Here's the lineup on line for the debate(s), which took place last night and today. TLast night's debate will be made available in DVD and MP-3.

Also, here's a podcast with Monton, who is attempting to "elevate the debate." I assume that means getting it out of the hands of people like fellow atheist PZ Myers, who is well represented by this exchange with an interviewer:

In a related matter, how come when I enter the search term "demented f*ckwit" into Pharyngula I get about a zillion hits?

Somebody's got to be in charge with slapping around the demented f*ckwits. The position has devolved on me.

To the extent that most people can distinguish between an argument and a knuckle sandwich, Monton has everything to gain by advancing an intelligent discussion.

A similar debate took place in England this fall, between agnostic sociologist Steve Fuller, for design in the universe as a legitimate perspective and Christina scientist Denis Alexander against it.

The big change is that the debate is increasingly around a reasonable interpretation of the evidence from nature, not the conspiracy theories of an entrenched Darwin lobby whose materialist - or anti-realist Christian - view of life is being dramatically disconfirmed. Increasingly, their Darwinism is a mantra, invoked against the evidence.

Anti-realist Christian? Well, the Faraday Institute's Denis Alexander, standard bearer for "anti-ID" Christian academics, would certainly qualify. He says, "We live in a universe created and sustained by God which displays design, but design is not particularly located in those aspects of the created order that science currently understands." In other words, we must accept on pure faith that the universe is designed because it doesn't look that way.

The trouble is, it does look that way, which is why Alexander's brand of "theistic evolution" is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Krauss's materialist position may be defensible, but Alexander's position is simply a relic of the days when Christians in science thought that the tide of evidence was running against them, and wanted to move the discussion to sheer existential "faith" - which, for what it is worth, was a brand new definition of faith, not known to the historic Christian tradition, which insisted that belief in God is a matter of reason. A friend comments,

As ever Phil Johnson puts it so perfectly succinctly when he asks “How can God guide an unguided process?” Simon Conway Morris is talking about convergent evolution – that is, the randomness of RM+NS = Teleology. There are too many of these folks who don’t understand basic geometry: Circles can’t be squared.

Well, they don't understand geometry, but they have faith.

Here are the preface and launch questions for the Dallas-Fort Worth debate:

1 Intelligent Design has been defined differently by different people. But one definition which has the advantage of simplicity and non-circularity is this one -- The study of patterns in nature best explained by a goal-directed cause capable of adapting means to achieve ends.

2 The Issue -- Preface: Recent advances in scientific knowledge concerning the physical properties of the universe have shown the remarkably precise requirements requisite for a universe in which carbon-based life might exist. It has oftentimes been stated that the universe almost looks fine-tuned for habitability. Similar advances in our understanding of the nature of life within the universe have shown many biological systems existing and functioning in such delicate and precise patterns of interdependence which appear to reflect evidence of information and intelligent design.

Question: Is it necessary or even helpful for the scientific method to assume the absence of a designer in a universe manifesting such features? Or might it be helpful toward an accurate understanding of the universe and life within it to examine certain of its features in light of the possibility of intelligent design and empirically detectable evidences of the same?

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 5: Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design

In this ID the Future podcast, Casey Luskin interviews Bradley J. Monton, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, about his new book Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009). As the book’s title suggests, Monton is an atheist who feels that some intelligent design (ID) arguments hold merit and are worth taking seriously. Listen to this podcast as Monton explains how ID-critics commonly dismiss the theory through fallacious objections that do not address the actual arguments of ID-proponents.

Go here to listen.

[From Denyse: I've written about Monton before, here. Here's his book on the subject, and here's his view of the recent Bloggingheads controversy (That ol' time magic! ID theorist disappears in broad Internet daylight). Monton, as I read him, is an atheist of the old, rational school, like Antony Flew (before he became a deist/theist). He thinks the ID theorists are wrong, but agrees that - based on evidence - they have a case worth arguing. He is clearly far more interested in pursuing ideas than in protecting institutions, but that's what a philosopher should be, and shame on those who aren't.]

Next: Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 6: Back to school with real science

(Note: If you follow me at Twitter, you will get regular notice of new Post-Darwinist posts, usually when I have posted five or so stories.)

More on BioLogos ...

Here, Tribune asks "What problem does Collins have with ID," in response to my post on his new venture BioLogos, "US government genome mapper Francis Collins fronts new BioLogos theory, preferred to “theistic evolution”"

Well, first, truth in advertising, I have written three reviews of Collins's book, The Language of God, two of which were quite favourable, and the third more thoughtful and critical. The first two merely recommend to book as suitable for a student at Christmas, for example, and I would stand by that. If the student comes home raving that he is an atheist because all scientists are, well, Collins thinks otherwise, is famous, and is an easy read.

But while Collins is an outstanding geneticist, I don't find him a deep thinker in these matters. So I am not sure how fruitful it would be to worry about what bothers him individually about ID, in an age when even an atheist like Bradley Monton thinks ID discussable and another atheist, Thomas Nagel, thinks ID discussable in schools.*

I am glad that, as others have noted, he isn't misrepresenting ID as a "God of the gaps" theory (= we can't understand it, so God dunit), when ID is about what we do understand (design). I assume that that is a sign of his good character.

The BioLogos project seems an effort to protect theistic evolution from the charge of practical atheism, by invoking Scripture. I do not think that will work, but I can certainly see how Christian clergy and scientists of a certain generation and religious preference would embrace it.

Theistic evolution got started in an age when it looked like Darwin was right, and people wanted to hang on to their faith. They professed that one could be a Christian and a Darwinist without paying any attention to the fact that it didn't work for Darwin and Darwin's aim was explicitly contrary to theirs, as he made clear to Wallace and Asa Gray.

But now it looks like he was wrong or doubtful, so theistic evolution is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. However, so much has been written in its defense and so many careers built on it that we must not expect it to just go away.

I would predict instead that there will be more efforts like Biologos, as theistic evolutionists try to position themselves in relation to current evidence.

*For the record, as a curriculum writer and sometime advisor, I would say that anything should be discussable in schools if the students actually care about it. Making the teacher or the curriculum irrelevant to students' true concerns is not the way to educate. Not every student who thinks school a waste of time has been wrong, unfortunately.

Top Ten Darwin and Design resources for 2009: #1

The biggest news, in my view, is that there is even a Top Ten. I myself cannot keep up with all the people who want me to look at their intelligent design projects. It's not that I don't care, but I am only one little old hack, and there are only so many hours in a day.

It's been difficult to keep journalists in this area; they tend to get scared off by aggressive Darwinists fronting their tax-funded, establishment line. And every weekend "relationships" news editor has endless time for "evolution" nonsense.

But word leaks out. As executive director Dennis Wagner comments, “I would never have predicted that an atheist [Thomas Nagel] would name a book about intelligent design as one of the top books of 2009, while another atheist [Bradley Monton] would write a book defending intelligent design? This is a sign that open minds in the academic and scientific communities are beginning to take the evidence for intelligent design seriously.”

Mind you, these two above mentioned are intelligent atheists. Nagel, for example, wrote the brilliant paper, "What is it like to be a bat?", exploring the mystery of animal minds. They restore my faith in human nature; I used to think all atheists were the sort of people who fill my In Box with vitriol - I had good reasons for thinking that, but it is not necessarily true as a consequence.

It's one thing not to believe in God; quite another to believe in the selfish gene, the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution, or how "evolution" explains why people vote for Sarah Palin or Al Gore.

So - ta-DA!! - here is the winner:

1.Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer (Harper One, 2009). Stephen Meyer forcefully outlined the positive case for design and refuted arguments that ID isn't science in his seminal book, Signature in the Cell, published by HarperCollins in June of 2009. The book was named one of the top books of 2009 in the prestigious Times Literary Supplement (TLS) annual "Books of the Year" issue. The selection was made by prominent philosopher (and noted atheist) Thomas Nagel at New York University. A companion three minute animated video, Journey Inside the Cell was released providing a stunning visual illustration of Meyer's points.

[From Denyse: To me, the most significant thing about the book is that Harper One thought it worth taking a chance on. Harper One is a pretty big publisher and assumes that the books it signs have a wide audience. Clearly, lots of people are beginning to guess that Darwinism is the General Motors of biology. Yes, it is big, but today only government bailouts keep it going. The challenge for design theorists today is not to keep one step ahead of the Darwin inquisition or even to gain a hearing but to explain what design offers.

PS: Harper One also published The Spiritual Brain by Beauregard and - ahem - O’Leary, a comprehensive survey of the dead end of materialist neuroscience. I regularly get letters from people thanking us for helping them understand, in a publishing universe where two-neuron you-neuron nonsense had become the normal fare.]

The #2 pick is here.

(Note: These are the key books, not science or media news. The Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments are here, the Top Ten Darwin and Design Media News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments on the latter are here. Also, to get the links, you must go here.)

Startling idea for a debate: Evidence really matters ...

The Great Debate: Intelligent Design and the Existence of God will be held November 7-8 in Fort Worth, Texas (here). I wouldn't really care except that the people who are debating are not who you might think ...

Here's the basic idea:

.... four world renowned participants who will address this significant issue from different viewpoints; specifically, a Pro-Intelligent Design Theist and Atheist, and an Anti-Intelligent Design Theist and Atheist.

Remember that born-again physics nerd with the weird haircut versus that atheist religion prof with the vasectomy tie? Well, forget them.

Here's the lineup:

Faraday Institute head Denis Alexander - he believes in God but not in design in the universe

Mathematician David Berlinski - he doesn't believe in God but entertains the idea of design in the universe

Physicist Lawrence Krauss - he doesn't believe in God or design

Philosopher Bradley Monton (From his site: "One of his main research areas nowadays involves science-based arguments for the existence of God.")

(The first three are pictured in order above. )

I'm glad someone had the wit to see that questions about whether God - the Western monotheistic God - exists are different from questions about whether patterns in nature, like the fine tuning of the universe, are best interpreted as evidence of design.

Of course some advocates have a massive interest in confusing these two questions, but they are actually separate.

Here are the venues:

Friday November 7, 2008
7:00 – 10:00 p.m.
Will Rogers Auditorium
3401 W. Lancaster Ave.
Fort Worth, Texas
Tickets: $10 Adults; $5 Students

with follow up the next morning
Saturday November 8, 2008
9:30 – 11:30 a.m.
St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church
917 Lamar St., Fort Worth, Texas
www.st-andrew.com
Tickets: FREE

I certainly hope this morphs into an online video.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: