Modern science is guided by the philosophy or methodology of naturalism. This means they either believe that, or go about their discipline acting as if God does not exist, or at least is not involved with the cosmos. As a result, most scientists deny that a designing intelligence is the cause of life on Earth. And yet the more scientists seek to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life on Earth, the more impossible it seems. Some have gone so far as to suggest that life must have been seeded on Earth by an alien civilization. This, of course, allows for the presence of a designing intelligence. To my amazement, Richard Dawkins holds this out as a scientific possibility. In the documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins how life began. After admitting that scientists do not know, Dawkins held out the possibility that life on Earth was seeded by aliens, and considered this a scientific hypothesis. The exchange was as follows:
BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution.
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Four things are of interest, here. First, when scientists have to resort to aliens to explain how life on Earth could have originated, you know they have no clue at all about the origin of life!
Secondly, Dawkins admits that design is empirically detectable. If that is true, then contrary to the anti-ID talking points, Intelligent Design is a genuine scientific theory.
Thirdly, this hypothesis—even if true—would not explain the origin of life in general, but only the origin of life on Earth. Alien life would go unexplained.
Fourthly, he is willing to countenance the possibility that a designing intelligence is responsible for life on Earth, so long as that designer is not a divine being. This reveals the fact that he not truly opposed to the existence of genuine design in biology, but simply prejudiced against the existence of a divine designer.
This says a lot.
Thinking to Believe 
May 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Yes, this does say a lot! It says that science is the vehicle of secular humanism and wants no part of a supernatural being. How sad to think that they are reaching our kids with their message.
LikeLike
May 5, 2008 at 10:02 pm
if the new atheists weren’t treated in such a respectable light by the mainstream media, their frantic and fragile grip to their doctrines would be downright hysterical. unfortunately, it’s terrifying.
LikeLike
May 6, 2008 at 2:44 pm
cs,
Yes, science has been hijacked. It used to be the pursuit of truth about the physical world. Now it is the pursuit of finding materialistic explanations, excluding God a priori.
Jason
LikeLike
May 6, 2008 at 2:45 pm
b,
Yes, they are treated with an undue amount of respect. I think the reason for this is that they are seen as the rational ones. Of course, this presupposes that religious belief is not rational. I would beg to differ. On almost every point theism is rationally superior to atheism.
Jason
LikeLike
May 12, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I watched the movie and the interaction between Stein and Dawkins is worth the price of admission.
It’s almost staggering to believe the hypocrisy that comes out of these athiest/scientists such as Dawkins. I almost swallowed my straw when I heard him say, “[…] you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”
Incredible. No wonder Dawkins is up in arms over the movie; showing up to various film openings to protest. Lol, he slays me.
LikeLike
May 13, 2008 at 10:32 am
Phillip,
Yes, that was a classic moment. I particularly liked Stein’s response (including the look he gave Dawkins). I don’t remember it exactly, but it was something like, “So you are willing to accept a designer of life if it is an alien, but not if it is God?”
Another one of my favorite parts was when Michael Ruse was explaining how life might have arisen by piggy-backing on crystals. Stein asked him a couple of times for a scientific explanation of the origin of life, and Ruse kept saying, “I told you already!”, to which Stein responded with an incredulous look, “Crystals?”
LikeLike
May 14, 2008 at 4:30 am
How about William Provine’s interview? That was both sad and odd.
Berlinski is my favorite. He was doing a book tour through my area recently and I missed it. I wanted to get him to sign my copy of The Devils Delusion and use that same pen he’s always twirling during the interviews.:-p
LikeLike
May 14, 2008 at 10:19 am
Dale,
Yes, the Provine interview was both sad and odd. Intellectually, I think it showed how bankrupt naturalism is. Naturalists are forced to believe really stupid things. What was sad was both his view of human life, and the fact that he is suffering from cancer(?) again. Like Stein said, I hope he doesn’t kill himself like he said he would.
LikeLike
May 14, 2008 at 10:23 am
Dale,
I forgot about Berlinski. I both like him and can’t stand him. I admire his intellect, wit, and honesty, and yet the man seems so pretentious and arrogant. It is a put-off for me. Having said that, I would like to get his book. Have you read it already? If so, what did you think of it?
LikeLike
May 14, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Jason,
I’m about 2/3 through TDD. It seems very similar to Vox Day’s The Irrational Atheist in that they both tackle the “New Atheists” from an intellectual and rational standpoint rather than a theistic one. Berlinski welds his crafty pen and Vox beats them with a whip and chair.
I haven’t read Ann Coulter’s Godless yet but I’ve heard its similar.
I suppose Belinski’s pomp and hauteur may stem from his origins not to mention the fact that he resides in France…
LikeLike
May 15, 2008 at 3:13 am
Jason,
I didn’t mean to suggest or imply that theism isn’t rational or intellectual. I simply meant that they don’t approach the argument from a theistic view or a biblical perspective. It bugs me when I hear theism characterized as a position of “faith” rather than reason.
Just wanted to clear that up.
LikeLike