Intelligent Design Versus Random Evolution
This document is a faithful transcript of
CNN's LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
(8:00 ET, May 12, 2005).
This transcript is fully accurate
(see original)
except:
(i) DR MAZUR's comments are red,
(ii) Emphasis is added in bold,
(iii) The first portion of the transcript, dealing with a different subject, is deleted.
DOBBS: Coming up next, here, a debate on the origin of life. I'll be joined by supporters of evolution, creation,
intelligent design, for a discussion on what they think should be taught in our nation's schools. Stay with us.
DR MAZUR: Hi Lou. Thank you for inviting me into your transcript.
Right from the get-go we need to confuse your audience of millions. The Design Movement thrives on confusion.
Congratulations on your title, "Random Evolution." You confused mutation, which can be random, with evolution, which is not.
And in your introduction you muddle Abiogenesis (origin of life) with
Evolution (mechanism of change in living systems over generations). You took something
as well-grounded as Darwin's 'Origin of Species', and poof, with a little TV magic,
changed it into 'Origin of Life'. We're off to a great start, Lou.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: New York, Kansas, and several other states are considering controversial proposals
that would change the way our children learn about the creation of human beings, the
earth and our universe.
DR MAZUR: Hey you forgot Georgia! Show some respect.
DOBBS: A relatively new theory, called intelligent design, suggests that Darwin's theory
of evolution can't explain the existence of every life form on earth.
DR MAZUR: New? Theory? We are off to a great start by planting the seed that Intelligent Design
is a theory, just like Quantum Mechanics, Gravity and Chemical Periodicity. And that's nice that you called it 'new'
when in truth the name is new but the idea is ancient. It predates Darwin.
DOBBS: Those who support intelligent design believe a higher being must have played some role. Now, proponents of
intelligent design want evolution to be challenged in our classrooms.
DR MAZUR: What service. Do you work for us full time Lou, or just part time? Keep your focus Lou,
to complete the circle, later on work in the idea the evolution is a religion, OK?
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to make it clear from the outset that I support mainstream science.
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is evolution's lone defender before the Kansas Board
of Education, a board considering changes to the way science is taught in Kansas. The
lawyer is alone because the scientists who believe in evolution boycotted the hearings.
The reason?
DR MAZUR: Because they are cowards!
PEDRO IRIGONERGARAY, ATTORNEY: You cannot argue science with individuals that are arguing non-scientific ideas.
That's the problem. You cannot debate that. It would be, in essence a waste of time. You can't do it.
DR MAZUR: Yep, those scientists are cowards.
TUCKER: Intelligent design, despite being supported by some scientists, is dismissed by others as looking and
feeling more like a religious doctrine. Proponents of intelligent design see themselves as simply critical of
evolutionary theory and more accommodating to the idea of the presence of a force, a guiding force,
they don't understand.
DR MAZUR: Be balanced Tuck. Teach the controversy. The two sides are of equal merit. On the mainstream side of the controversy you
have your proponents of intelligent design, you know, the reDiscovery Institute and intellectuals like David Klang Klinghoffer and Ann Coulter. And then, resisting scientific evidence,
representing the Darwinists, you have your National Academy Of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Genetics Society of America, Geological Society Of America, the Paleontological Society, the Society for
Integrative and Comparative Biology, the Society of Systematic Biologists, the Botanical Society of America,
the American Physical Society, and the Biophysical Society, and all those others who need to learn skepticism.
BRIAN SANDAFUR, INTELLIGENT DESIGN NETWORK: An intelligent design is not necessarily at odds with evolution per
se. Evolution and evolutionary processes certainly explain quite a lot. But there's quite a lot that they don't
explain either. So intelligent design is perfectly willing to accept evolutionary explanations where they are
actually supported by the data.
TUCKER: The hearings have been characterized as the Scopes Trials turned on its head. It was 80 years ago this months,
and depicted in the film "Inherit the Wind," that high schoolteacher John Scopes was tried and convicted in Tennessee for illegally teaching evolution.
DR MAZUR: Sure, scopes turned on its head. This time, the scientists are the losers.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that was the title of Darwin's book.
TUCKER: But nowhere in the suggested changes to the science curriculum in Kansas are the words intelligent design,
creationism or God. CONNIE MORRIS, KANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Intelligent design doesn't have anything to
do with what we're debating. I know that lots of people want to make it true that we're trying to insert intelligent
design or, heaven forbid, creationism in the standards, but that's not what we're doing. Nowhere near that. We're
not trying to insert religion whatsoever.
DR MAZUR: Tuck, Tuck you should have checked in with me on this one. Fortunately Lou won't
let the audience in on our little joke, but Ms. Morris is bad news. She is a total nutcase, who has expressed her opposition to evolution in public (!). She is scary devout fundamentalist Christian who thinks god personally asked her to run
for the Kansas Board of Education. She said she is hoping the
hearings would give her evidence that she can
repeat in opposition to evolution. And she is not a shallow and one-dimensional loser. She believes
that the children of undocumented immigrants should be not allowed in public schools despite a
Supreme Court ruling to the contrary. She spread a vicious and false rumor that Garden City Mayor
Tim Cruz was once an illegal immigrant. A good Christian, yes. But a spokesperson? We could do better.
TUCKER: The language of the changes call for a more critical look at evolution, institutionalizes skepticism,
which some would argue is a hallmark of the scientific process.
DR MAZUR: Right Tuck, you and your journalist friends who swallowed whole the story about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq now report that scientists are insufficiently
skeptical. Scientists fell for Darwinism over a hundred years ago
and have uncritically accepted it ever since. Insufficient skepticism runs rampant at the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
Genetics Society of America, the Geological Society of America, the Paleontological Society, the Society for
Integrative and Comparative Biology, the Society of Systematic Biologists, the Botanical Society of America, the American Physical Society, and the Biophysical Society.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: The problem is, to have a dialogue, there has to be a shared language. But evolutionists are quick to dismiss
the intelligent design argument as modern day creationism. And the intelligent design advocates accuse evolutionist
of being simply afraid to admit that the evolutionary theory doesn't explain anything.
DR MAZUR: OK Lou, Tucker did well. Your audience learned that scientists are afraid. And dialog, scientists need dialog, Scientists need to share language with Intelligent Design Theorists. And skepticism, scientists need skepticism. Invite Tucker to Karl's barbecue on friday. Ted Haggard will supply the Meth.
TUCKER: So, Lou, perhaps you can get the dialogue started here on the show this evening.
DR MAZUR: Oh yes Tuck, scientists need
journalists, the weapons of mass destruction dopes, to help seek truth and
to mediate disputes. Scientists should adopt the journalistic model and
get rid of peer-review. Pat Buchanan and his friends on Cross-Fire
can scream at each other to work out what gets published and what gets funded.
DOBBS: Well, we're sure going to try. We'll be talking with three proponents of each
of those elements -- that is evolution, creationism and intelligent design. But first we
want to hear from you on this important issue. Which theory do you think should be taught
in our schools -- creationism, evolution, intelligent design or all of the above? Cast
your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results here. And perhaps, if you needed help in
making up your mind in responding to that question, we have some interesting people to
debate the issues.
DR MAZUR: Very good Lou. We need to be democratic. Scientific theories should stand or fall by
popular vote. Evolution is toast, obviously headed for electoral defeat. But when, exactly, when are
we going to hold the vote on Chemical Periodicity? Are we going to vote on Gravity?
DOBBS: Michael Ruse is philosophy of science professor at Florida State University. He says only evolution should be taught in our schools.
DR MAZUR: Hey Gimmick, long time no see. How goes the William Dembski/Michael Ruse traveling dog and pony show?
DOBBS: Jonathan Wells, a molecular biologist, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. He
says teachers and students should be allowed to discuss the theory of intelligent design
in their classrooms.
DR MAZUR: Jonathan Wells the Moonie? Ew. Anyway, this worked well, Lou. Here you have effectively equated Florida State University
with the Discovery Institute. FSU is a real university with students, graduate students, laboratories,
libraries, professors and departments of chemistry, biology,
and physics. The Discovery Institute is three rooms on the second floor of a non-descript office building
in downtown Seattle,
funded by an ultra-conservative, ultra-rich, California savings and loan heir who believes that the American
democracy should be replaced with biblical theocracy. But your audience will never know the difference between Florida
State University and the Discovery Institute because you won't tell them.
DOBBS: And John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research, who says evolution is wrong and unscientific.
DR MAZUR: Egad, where did you get him? Cut to commercial! Fire your booking agent!
Yes Morris is on our side but we don't associate with him in public. He makes us look like religious kooks.
You better run interference on this one Lou,
or we rescind the invitation to Karl's barbecue.
DOBBS: Gentlemen, thanks for being here.
DOBBS: Michael, let me begin with you. At this point the Kansas Board is really trying to say we want to be
able to criticize and effectively debate evolution.
DR MAZUR: Effectively debate evolution? Oh really? You present as objective fact
the outlandish and demonstrably false premise that Connie Miller and the Kansas Board of Education
want honest debate.
Didn't they teach you not to do this kind of
thing in Journalism 101?
You say that the Kansas Board wants to be "able
to criticize and effectively debate evolution," when we know that is not true. Connie Miller has stated on the
record that she wants to use the debates to gather ammunition to attack evolution.
Kansas State Board of Education chair Steve Abrams says, "Eventually people will have to choose between the
Bible's explanation for life on Earth or evolution, which is just dogma," What's to debate?
If real scientists participate in these phony debates, ID proponents gain legitimacy.
For ID proponents and creationists, debate equals propaganda. You gave them a leg up, Lou.
DOBBS: What is your response to their mission?
DR MAZUR: Their real mission? Or your mis-representation of their mission?
Let's not tell our audience what their real mission is.
RUSE: Well, if they just want to have a look at science critically, then I've got no problems with that.
I take it that one's going to do that with everything. But why are
they focusing on evolution as something which needs special treatment? What I think is
that hey are trying, as it were, under the radar, to bring in at least intelligent design
if not outright fundamentalist, outright creationism that Mr. Morris subscribes to. I
mean, either they're trying to do something new or they're not. If they're not, why are
they bothering? If they are, then come clean and tell us really what's going to happen in
Kansas schools start September?
DR MAZUR: Hey Gimmick, do you practice at being incoherent, or is it a talent you were born with?
DOBBS: John Morris, your reaction?
JOHN MORRIS, INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH: You know, it's interesting to hear Mr.
Ruse say that we're trying to get creation in the schools. Actually the Institute for
Creation Research, where I am, does not try to get creation in the schools. The courts
have ruled that the Bible, religion doesn't belong in the schools, however much it should
have been, but they ruled that way. We don't try to get it in.
What I would like to see is all the facts in and the facts that don't support
evolution, we need to stop censoring them out and give our students the chance to make up
heir own minds.
DR MAZUR: Here at the reDiscovery Institute we don't find it useful to
blab on about the ICR, which says, "We are a Christ focused Creation ministry where science and the Bible
are fully integrated," and that the goal of the ICR is to "Change the Face of Education." They
believe that, "any study of life yields evidence of the Creator's handiwork." Isn't this something we
can agree to keep quiet?
DOBBS: What kind of fact comes to mind that doesn't support evolution in your judgment?
DR MAZUR: What a penetrating question. That is just what millions
of Americans need to hear - a journalist whose last science class was 10th grade chemistry asking a creationist
to explain flaws in evolutionary theory.
MORRIS: One of the standard arguments for evolution is the idea that in the mother's womb, the human embryo
goes through the various stages. It remembers its evolutionary history. This is in almost all the textbooks, but this is demonstrably wrong, and we're
not teaching our kids that this is an outdated theory.
DR MAZUR: Whoa! Bloody Hell! Thanks Lou for not calling him on that load of bull. The guys are
going to be patting you on the back at Karl's barbecue.
DOBBS: Jonathan Wells, intelligent design. How would you come down on this issue?
JONATHAN WELLS, MOLECULAR BIOLOGIST: Well, I would not advocate teaching intelligent design or not advocate
requiring it in science classrooms. And certainly this is not what's happening in Kansas. I just came from
testifying there as a biologist, and what I
testified was that there are certain areas in the evidence where the more we learn, the
less Darwinian evolution looks like the true explanation. And I think students need to
hear that.
DR MAZUR: Hey, that's the Ice Pick Gambit! Good job on that Jonathan (see you at Karl's barbecue
next friday.) Uh Lou, maybe it would be best not to mention just here that the Ice Pick Gambit is a well-known
political strategy to get religion into the science classroom. We don't need let your audience know that Wells is a habitual
liar with the credibility of the Mad Hatter.
DOBBS: Michael Ruse, what's your reaction?
RUSE: Well, let's sort of pick up first on Jonathan Wells' point.
DOBBS: Sure.
RUSE: He sort of equivocated or he moved from evolution to Darwinism. Now, evolution
is the idea that all organisms are descended from one or a few original ancestors.
Darwinism is the mechanism. Darwinism is certainly accepted I would say by at least 90
percent of active evolutionists in America today. Is he actually challenging the fact of evolution? I know that Mr. Morris would. Is
Jonathan Wells saying it's okay to teach evolution in the schools? Where he's worried is
teaching Darwinism? Is he saying we should teach evolution? Let's have some discussions --
DR MAZUR: This guy is good Lou. You picked a goofy scientist who is physically repulsive
and totally incomprehensible. When was his last bath?
DOBBS: Why don't you ask him?
DR MAZUR: That would be cruel.
RUSE: -- about Darwinism.
DR MAZUR: Oh, I thought you wanted to know about his last bath.
DOBBS: Jonathan Wells, which is it that you're saying?
WELLS: Well, evolution is a very broad term. For some people, it simply means change
over time. I don't know anybody who disagrees with that meaning of evolution. So I try to
be more precise. When I say Darwinian evolution, I'm referring to Darwin's theory, which
he called descent with modification. The first element of that is, as Michael points, out
descent of living organisms from common ancestors. The second element is the mechanisms of
modification. I think the evidence poses serious problems for both aspects of Darwin's
theory.
DR MAZUR: Luckily for Mad Hatter Wells, no one on this illustrious panel will bother
noting that tens of thousands of biologists disagree with his religiously-inspired interpretation
of the 'evidence'.
RUSE: So, in other words, what you're saying is we shouldn't teach that the Earth is 4
1/2 billion years old, that life came about 3 1/2 billion years, that humans have been
around for a million years or something like that - that's part of evolution as you
understand it, and you wouldn't have that taught without a great deal of hostility or
debate or criticism in schools. Is that your bottom- line position?
DR MAZUR: Lou, pay attention, we gotta change the subject. If Ruse manages
formulate a intelligible question here, he might force Wells to spill the
beans about the age of the earth - Wells thinks it is 6,000 years old. Wells will
be exposed as a religious nutcase and a dissembler. We have to move on here.
WELLS: Michael, you're bringing in something I didn't even talk about. I didn't bring up the age issue.
DR MAZUR: Lou, pay attention. Lou, change the subject.
RUSE: I know I am because you didn't talk about it, because you knew that I'd pin you
down if you did.
DR MAZUR: Looouuuu, oh Looouuuu.
WELLS: I have no problem with that issue. I have no problem teaching students about that. What I'm saying is
that students should also know --
DR MAZUR: Evasive action. Evasive action.
RUSE: So you've got no problem teaching students --
WELLS: Michael, let me answer your question. I think that students need to know that
the evidence for this common ancestry thesis and for the mechanism of evolution, the
evidence is serious wanting. And students need to know the truth about the evidence.
DR MAZUR: Evasive action. Evasive action.
DOBBS: All right, gentlemen, we're going to continue this discussion, this debate in just a moment.
DR MAZUR: Phew, we dodged a bullet there. Great interviewing technique Lou. Always
help your guests evade those critical questions - does Wells think the earth is 4.5 billion years old, or
does he think it is 6 thousand years old? - an answer to that question might allow the audience to figure out that Wells
is driven by his religion, not by science.
DOBBS: We'll have much more with our distinguished panel here. But first a
reminder to vote in our poll tonight. We'd like to know which theory you think should be
taught in schools -- creationism, evolution, intelligent design, all of the above. Cast
your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll be back with the gentlemen in just a few minutes.
DR MAZUR: How many times on one show can one journalist equate
creationism, evolution, and intelligent design. So the bible is a theory?
-SNIP-
DOBBS: John Morris, you have listened to Jonathan and Michael basically conflict on
this issue with some interesting turns. But you believe in creationism and actually
believe that there are scientific failings within evolution, and certainly Darwinism, that
should make room for creationism. Why?
DR MAZUR: Actually it was pretty boring.
MORRIS: I do believe that there are failings in evolution. The fact is that these
things can vary horizontally within -- within limits, but to go from one basic category to
another, that's never been observed by science, and it's contrary to genetic laws, and
it's the faith of evolution. That's what I think is the issue. We have a faith of
evolution being taught in our public schools as -- masquerading as science.
DR MAZUR: Eeek! Contrary to genetic laws? Step in here, Lou.
DOBBS: Masquerading as science -- Michael, I have the funny feeling that you are not
going to...
RUSE: Well, we have a -- I mean, you know, let's face up to it. We have a faith in arithmetic, too. You know, I'm pretty committed to two plus two equals four. We've got a
faith in (INAUDIBLE)
DR MAZUR: Oh yeah Gimmick, like that's going to convince Middle America. Math and Science are one thing.
Biology is altogether different.
MORRIS: Now, Michael, you know that's not a valid comparison.
RUSE: Of course it's a valid comparison.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Let me give you all three an example of something and sort of help me out,
because it's one of those things, when we talk about the origins of life itself, the big
bang theory, or whether we're talking about Genesis -- in the beginning, there was what?
Stephen Hawking says, big bang. Other physicists would say that things just were. Genesis
says that God created what is.
DR MAZUR: Teach the big bang controversy! First we slander biology, then physics, and then chemistry.
DOBBS: How do you sort out the science and the faith in either of those two views, because it
seems that faith is required in all views regarding the beginning of life, whether
scientific, so-called, or whether religious.
DR MAZUR: You did it Lou, first you said Intelligent Design is science, and
that creationism is a theory. Now you claim evolution is religion. You have closed the circle.
Rationality is banished. We have won. And I love that phrase, "scientific, so-called".
You will go down in history, so-called. You the man, Lou, you the man.
DOBBS: Michael?
RUSE: Well, if you are asking me, I think it's perfectly possible for somebody to be a Christian and to accept the science as well. I mean, I think that one could certainly believe...
DR MAZUR: Um no, Gimmick, that is not the question being asked.
MORRIS: Michael, I would rather you say evolution and not science. Many Christians are scientists.
DR MAZUR: You, Mr. Morris, are not among them.
RUSE: No, not when I'm talking about science. Yes, I also think that one could...
MORRIS: Well, to equate evolution and science is incorrect.
RUSE: No, yes, -- look, it's up to god. If god wants to do it through evolution,
that's god's business, not yours or mine or Jonathan Wells' business. That's the way it's
supposed to be. It's our job to find out.
MORRIS: I suspect the only way evolution could happen is if god did it.
(CROSSTALK)
DR MAZUR: zzzzzzzz.
RUSE: No, I think that you people are being deliberately anti- Christian,
anti-religious. You are made in the image of god, then you're supposed to use your reason
fearlessly to find out about god's creation. And I think that you two are just too scared
to do that.
RUSE: You know, I think...
DR MAZUR: zzzzzzzz, zzzzzz.
WELLS: I fine it odd that you are accusing us of being anti- Christian.
DR MAZUR: Odd? Maybe. Stupid? Definitely.
WELLS: I have at least a dozen (INAUDIBLE) books.
RUSE: Like, well...
DR MAZUR: Success. The religious nuts come across as reasoned and rational. The scientist?
Unbathed, ungroomed and incoherent.
DOBBS: You have at least what? I'm sorry.
WELLS: I have a dozen biology textbooks at home that explicitly use evolution, misuse
evolution, as an argument against theism, belief in god, Christianity, and so on.
DR MAZUR: Please Jonathan there are children watching. We don't want to know what you and Ted Haggard do at home.
DOBBS: Let me ask the three of you one question -- I'd love to hear your thoughts on
this, because the Kansas Board of Education -- state Board of Education -- in point of
fact, there are great politics involved in this, which is sometimes overlooked, seeking
first to involve creationism, in the first iteration -- the election then shifted and the
so-called conservatives in the state board of education moved out and moved back to
evolution, in the state panel. And now, with a more conservative board, we're back to this
issue.
DR MAZUR: Great Politics?
Yes it is great when politics intrudes into the science curricula. This is just a game, and we love playing it.
A little collateral damage, like education of our children, or the rationality of our society, should not interrupt our fun with politics.
Overlooked? Without your razor sharp insight we would never have understood there are politics involved. Oh, so that's why George Bush came out in support of Intelligent Design.
And that's why you are hosting a show on it. We foolishly figured it
was just your deep interest in all things science, which must have blossomed after you left college, since you
scrupulously avoided those science classes at Harvard.
DOBBS: To what degree should the vagaries of politics influence what is happening in the curriculum of students
in the state of Kansas or anywhere else?
WELLS: (INAUDIBLE) ...should at all.
MORRIS: Well, I think I...
WELLS: What I would want to say is...
MORRIS: I think I probably...
DOBBS: Go ahead, Michael.
RUSE: OK.
WELLS: I probably know more about what is going on in Kansas than anyone here since I
just came from there. In '99, a conservative Kansas board did not try to insert
creationism in the standards. They did some things that angered the evolutionary biology
community considerably. And an election changed that, and then recently that changed
again.
MORRIS: That's what I said.
WELLS: But creationism is not on the table here in Kansas.
RUSE: Oh, yes it is. Oh, yes it is.
WELLS: No, it's not, Michael. Show me where.
RUSE: Intelligent design is
(CROSSTALK)
DR MAZUR: I'm nodding off again here, Lou, can't you get this back on track?
DOBBS: OK, that question isn't going to work because we're going to talk across one
another, and I'm the only one who gets to talk across folks here, just bear with me.
DR MAZUR: Or, ah, maybe the question doesn't work because it was just a really dumb question...
DOBBS: The fact is, that evolution, Darwinism, is not a fully explained or completely rigorous and
defined science that has testable results within it. Like a...
DR MAZUR: Lou! Lou! Lou! We are going to toast you at Karl's barbecue, we will
nominate you for an honorary Ph.D. from Liberty University. You have done everything we have asked and more.
The Design Movement thanks you, Lou Dobbs. We honor Lou Dobbs.
RUSE: Now, who says that? Is that you?
DOBBS: I do. I do.
DR MAZUR: What courage that you, on national television, fearlessly express muddled and inarticulate
opinions on a technical issue about which you know
nothing - opinions that are directly contradicted by the imminent biologists at the National Academy of Sciences. I wanna be
a Journalist on National TV!
DOBBS: And, if I may finish, Michael. Michael, I said, only I get to talk over anyone.
RUSE: OK, fair enough. Your show.
DOBBS: And, in that degree, if one moves aside from the issue and suggests that
creationism be taught within a religious class, within the schools, and one looks at the
prospect of intelligent design and evolution, with critical thought -- because you say
life was 4-and-a-half billion years ago, the planet began 4-and-a-half billion years ago
-- we continue to change our views scientifically on when what occurred, that is, in terms
of missing links within the family tree of life on this planet.
DR MAZUR: We hear words, we recognize elements of gammer. We think the language may be English.
But you are making no sense at all Lou, none. Let's leave well enough alone and move on a different topic. It's time
for a discussion of the pretty white woman who went missing from her wedding in Georgia but then showed up somewhere in Arizona.
DOBBS: Is there anything wrong with criticizing evolution in your minds?
DR MAZUR: Lou maybe, just maybe, if you have a minute to spare,
you might call up a real biologist. Not Wells, not Ruse, not Morris, but a real biologist.
You might discover him/her to be smart, interesting, and skeptical. You might learn
that biologists
criticize things, including all aspects of evolutionary theory, for a living.
You might learn that real biologists don't use the term 'Darwinist' and that evolution is not
a religion. You might learn that tens of thousands of biologists have not misinterpreted over
145 years of data supporting
the basic paradigm of evolution. You might learn that this paradigm is the principal
explanatory theory for all biological phenomena, and has been
successfully applied to problems
from the predictions of the dynamics of plagues, to the Human, Chimpanzee and Mouse genomes, to antibiotic
resistance in bacteria and viruses,
to the green revolution in agriculture. You might learn that over the last several decades,
the concepts, methods and results of
evolutionary theory and experiment have transcended biology, and are now of
tremendous importance to other fields, including medicine and
the chemical sciences. You might be convinced that alternatives to evolutionary theory that invoke the
supernatural cannot be accepted as scientific.
Oh, but wait, you are a journalist, and
that story about the missing white women beckons. Never mind.
DOBBS: And would that satisfy the -- and would that satisfy you, Jonathan and you, John? But,
first you, Michael, if you would answer?
DR MAZUR: Lou, please, what on God's earth (literally) are
you trying to ask here?
RUSE: Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing science. I think
that you are quite wrong about evolution. I just don't think that we're turning up new
evidence which is questioning evolution. You can certainly make predictions. One
prediction, you are not going to find...
DOBBS: No, no, I'm not going to -- we need real succinct answers.
DR MAZUR: Succinct? You are not succinct. Why should your guests be succinct?
RUSE: (INAUDIBLE)...rabbits found in the... (ph)
DOBBS: I'm sorry, we are out of time. I didn't say questioning evolution.
DR MAZUR: Let's be honest Lou. You have questioned evolution. You have denigrated and misrepresented not only evolution but science and rationality in general.
DOBBS: I said filling in or creating new concerns and questions about elements within evolution in the tree of life.
DR MAZUR: You have very little idea what you have said.
RUSE: I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as it's not a program for inserting religion...
DOBBS: Guys, we're out of time.
RUSE: ...into the schools.
DOBBS: Gentlemen, we thank you for being here. We'll have you back if you will have us
back. Michael, thank you very much, Jonathan, John, thank you.
WELLS: Thank you.
MORRIS: Thank you.
DOBBS: Still ahead, here, the results of our poll. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll tonight, which theory do you believe should be taught in our schools?
DR MAZUR: Which theory? Evolution is a theory, Gravity is at theory. Chemical Periodicity is a theory.
The Bible is not a theory.
DOBBS: Six percent of you say evolution; 63 percent of you say evolution. Intelligent design, 2 percent,
all of the above, 29 percent. So would he haven't quite resolved the entire matter but we're well on our way.
DR MAZUR: Well on our way? You think so? You think your show has contributed something positive?
I love you like a brother Lou, really I do, and I will toast you at Karl's barbecue.
But Jeez, what have you done?
You misled your audience, and you allowed your guests to do so, too.
You demonstrated profound ignorance of biology, evolution, science and religion.
You called Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creation Science theories.
You called Evolution religion.
You violated the most basic tenets of journalism.
You failed to construct a correct sentence or phrase a coherent question.
Your show is boring and uninformative.
Those polling numbers just got all jumbled up in your little brain or somewhere between your brain and your mouth.
After this performance, the honorary Ph.D. might be a hard sell. Even Liberty College has standards.
DOBBS: And we will have those gentlemen back to continue this discussion. We thank you for
being with us here tonight. A call for a state police force dedicated to securing our
border -- also tomorrow, what is our government doing to insure American workers are
competing on a quote, unquote, "level" playing field, with the rest of the world? We'll be
addressing those issues here tomorrow night. Please be with us. For all of us here, good
night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now.
DR MAZUR: Bye bye, Lou. You the man Lou.
END