interviews

Intelligent Design Uncensored Co-Author Jonathan Witt

You can get the Dembski-Witt book right now...* Intelligent Design Uncensored: Dr. Philip Skell, a member of one of the world's most elite science associations, the National Academy of Sciences, describes this Intelligent Design book by William Dembski and Jonathan Witt as, "A five-star fantastic voyage!" After reading this enjoyable and educational book, Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart talks to Dr. Witt about intelligent design and the surrounding controversy.

* RSR Interviews with ID Proponents:
- rsr.org/paul-nelson (Discovery Institute)
- rsr.org/stephen-meyer (Discovery Institute)
- rsr.org/richard-sternberg (Discovery Institute)
- rsr.org/john-west (Discovery Institute)
- rsr.org/jonathan-witt (this program)
- rsr.org/lad-allen (Illustra Media producer)
- rsr.org/coppedge (Illustra Media director, producer, science writer, creationist)

* Atheist Circular Reasoning and Eugenie Scott: Dr. Witt points out that atheists like Darwinist Eugenie Scott make a circular argument claiming that only material explanations are "allowed" in science (including for origins), and then they claim that science thereby proves that only material causes exist. Consider that Dr. Scott is attempting to use logic, which is not material, to argue for methodological materialism, which rejects the validity of anything not material. (Bob Enyart has debated Eugenie Scott, and for the 10-year anniversary of that program, RSR Exhumed Eugenie and replayed that debate in which she claimed explicitly that all non-coding regions of DNA were affirmatively known to be useless, that further research would not show otherwise, and so that Junk DNA was the best evidence she could offer against the existence of a Creator.)

RSR: Jonathan Sarfati vs. Richard Dawkins

* Sept. 2015 Update -- Richard Dawkins 3-to-1 Evolution Challenge: Research in preparation for an upcoming debate led Bob Enyart and his associate Will Duffy to Oxford University in the United Kingdom. With the success of RSR's PZ Myers Troclea Challenge (see the popular evolutionist's reply here), the guys decided to hand deliver a copy of this Dawkins 3-to-1 Challenge to the office of professor emeritus Richard Dawkins, who lectures there for a course titled, Science Literacy: Evolution for Non-Scientists

DAWKIN'S 3-to-1 EVOLUTION CHALLENGE from RSR

Dawkin's Greatest Hoax


































* Dr. Jonathan Sarfati on this Special Edition of Real Science Radio
:  The world's #1 creation author Dr. Sarfati takes on the world's #1 evolution author Richard Dawkins in the battle of the books. Dawkin's latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth is refuted by Sarfati's The Greatest Hoax on Earth! In this chat with Dr. Sarfati, BEL's producer re-airs a caller from 1997 who asked about Dawkins and Bob pointed out then that in all Dawkins' books

, this famous atheist doesn't give evidence for evolution: he only assumes it is true. Dr. Sarfati agrees and quotes from Dawkins own book in which he admits that he had never given the evidence for evolution. Huh! [Update: In December BEL spliced audio of Dawkins admitting this with our 1997 caller. See it below or on YouTube: Dawkins Proves Creationist Right.)

* Dawkins' Thoughts About Aliens Are Revealing: This is hardly novel, because forensic scientists routinely distinguish between intent and natural causes. But in the excerpt transcribed just below it's fun to see Richard Dawkins, who eschews Intelligent Design, admit that molecular biology may very well be able to identify intentional design in living organisms. Dawkins claims about aliens implies much about alien physiology which seems to undermine the claim that Darwinism is theoretically falsifiable. Consider these two points. First, on Intelligent Design, in Ben Stein's movie Expelled, Dawkins admits that molecular biology could provide the evidence that life on earth was intelligently designed. And if so...

(1) Richard Dawkins' Aliens Validate the Intelligent Design Effort when he said about the origin of life on earth:

"It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved, by probably some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose that it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. You might find a signature of some sort of designer… And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -Dawkins

 

So Dawkins actually says about life on earth that it could be that it may have originated from a higher intelligence, from somewhere in outer space, with aliens who seeded life on earth. Yet that is what ruins scientists careers and even gets them fired: for saying that genetic evidence might indicate that life did not merely arise on earth but was put here by some intelligent agent. And Dawkins is the world's leading evolutionist, and we have him on film admitting the reasonableness of Intelligent Design. Huh! Dawkins' own complaint about his alien segment is stretched to the absurd by his fellow spin-control atheists who have taken his paraphrase of Stein's question to mean that Stein's actual question was edited out of the film. Oh brother. In reality, Dawkins was engaged in his discussion with Ben Stein. Attending a movie marathon, Bob Enyart watched that scene 15 times, and it is obvious that Richard Dawkins was not manipulated or misquoted. Rather, he showed surprising candor when he admitted that the complexity observed by molecular biologists could be evidence that life on earth originated from a higher intelligence. And like Francis Crick, when Dawkins says that life on earth might be too complex to arise here by chance, then he is just punting when he guesses that it could have originated somewhere else.

(2) Richard Dawkins' Alien Evolution Disproves Darwinist Falsifiability: Ostensibly, an alien life form anywhere in the universe (or in the fantasized multiverse) might have no similarity with terrestrial biology, perhaps not even being based on amino acids, sugars, nor even carbon atoms. Thus predictions (which are the stuff of hard science) as used by evolution scientists have no actual real-world specificity, so they cannot even theoretically falsify Darwin's central claim. For in practice, evolution "theory" is pliable enough to account for any observations even if imaginary, like alien physiology.  Thus it is treated like a philosophy and not an actual, falsifiable scientific theory.