While I don’t have a great deal of respect for John Lennox as a thinker on religion, I had always considered him someone who at least had respect for and understanding of legitimate science. So when I saw this discussion I had hoped he has been invited as someone to provide balance and counterpoint to Behe and Meyer’s anti-scientific drivel. Instead, to my disappointment, it appears he just nods along in agreement with and even adds to their claims. That said, I have not watched the whole thing but from what I have seen he does not take issue with any of the hoary and long-debunked stories about the Cambrian explosion, the evolvability of of functional proteins, irreducible complexity, etc. the ID’ers spin.
I like to listen to this stuff while I go for runs. Bookmarked for later.
In my opinion, Peter Robinson at Hoover has gone a long way in helping legitimize Meyer in particular.
I think “intelligent design” (lower case) is fine as a religious or philosophical concept, but it doesn’t seem coherent as a scientific endeavor. That seems to be the Discovery Institute’s angle–poke holes evolutionary biology while making untestable claims about intelligent design as a legitimate replacement for the science.
Indeed, there appears to be a lot of wiggle room allowed for someone to make this claim. Behe is often said to “support evolution” because he accepts common descent. Some YEC’s say they “accept evolution” because they believe “kinds” can adapt to their environment.
Another question just came to mind: Meyer keeps saying (incorrectly) that there is insufficient fossil evidence to support the position that all animals are related by common descent. I wonder if he has every written about the fossil record documenting hominid evolution, and whether he makes the same claim regarding common ancestry between humans and other animals.