Peter Ward Versus Stephen Meyer: No Contest
|April 29, 2006||Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design|
I am anxiously awaiting a transcript of the recent Ward versus Meyer debate. In the meantime you can check out the transcript of their last debate here:
Peter Ward is way out of his league in the presence of Stephen Meyer. Frankly, I was embarrassed for Ward.
Here are a few excerpts. Check out the transcript and judge for yourself.
Ward: … evolution I think should be taught in schools. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s really the major paradigm of biology. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s certainly going to keep us, letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hope, through antibiotics and other evolutionary mechanisms, safe, safe from bird flu for instance.
Ward: [ID] is an assertion. It is not a theory.
Ward: Where do you get your funds?
Ward: [To Stephen Meyer] IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not as smart as you. I mean, my colleagues are in awe of you, and I look at your publication list, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve done some amazing work, but IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m here to say, Steve, turn to the evolution sideÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ it is your destiny.
Ward: … none of us can understand how long geological time is. I mean, weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re talking –you hear the old metaphor of given enough time the monkeys can write anything, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s probably true.
Ward: WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re within 4-5 years, 20 million dollars says Jack Solzdeck at Harvard, of artificially making a DNA molecule. Now look, this is no God involved, this is hard-nosed chemists!
Ward: Steve you said you had to have intelligence to get to information, but look at the Miller-Urey experiment where he just put in some gases, heated it, and out of that gas came some very complex organic molecules including 10 of the 20 amino acids…
Meyer: I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think any origin of life theorist today thinks Miller-Urey is relevant, for one because he did it under nonrealistic conditions, but secondly because of the information problem. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s easy to get the building blocks, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s very difficult to get the building blocks to arrange themselves into meaningful or biologically functional sequences, so you can get amino acids, but you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get the proteins.
Ward: ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not true! ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not true!
Ward: YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re telling students, Ã¢â‚¬Å“YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll never figure this out because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s too complicated so donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even try.Ã¢â‚¬Â So letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s say we want to have a new anti-ballistic missile system (God forbid), but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s too difficult, we better let some intelligent designer do it (who doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t seem to want to do it), or even better than that, we want a new hydrogen car, but guess what, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just too complicated, so letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not do it.
Ward: We can watch that code being built now. And heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s saying, well, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s in a laboratory with a guided hand. We can get it done inorganically, we can set up experiments in rock pools, if you want, to build the same darn thing.
Ward: Again, weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re talking about nothing less than the future of our country in producing scientists and engineers. If you bring religion in, you change that.
Dori: I know you want to present this and frame it as a scientific issue. I hope you consider this a fair question, since Peter said itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a stalking horse for getting creationism in the schools: Are you a Christian?
Meyer: I am a Christian.
Dori: And since I asked Stephen if he was a Christian, are you an agnostic or atheist, Peter?
Ward: I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s any of your business.