Richard Dawkins: We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

Ben Stein: And what was that?

Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.

Ben Stein: Right, and how did that happen?

Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.

Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.

Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone.
Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?

Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by 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... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?

Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
Richard Dawkins: ...if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
David Berlinski: And I think it's just a catastrophic mistake to have somebody like Dawkins address himself to profound issues of theology, the existence of God, the nature of life. He hasn't committed himself to disciplined study in any relevant area of inquiry. He's a crummy philosopher. He doesn't have the rudimentary skills to meticulously assess his own arguments.
Jeffrey Schwartz: This conflict over the principles of evolution has become a religious war. It really is no longer about scientific investigation.
William Provine: No gods, no life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no alternate meaning in life, and no human free will... are all deeply connected to an evolutionary perspective.
Ben Stein: But will eradicating religion really lead to a modern utopia? Let me try to imagine that and let's let history be our guide.
Ben Stein: What other societies have used Darwinism to trump all other authorities, including religion? As a Jew, my mind left to one regime in particular.
John Polkinghorne: People who tell you, for example, that science tells all you need to know about the world, or what science tells you is all wrong, or science tells us there is no God, those people aren't telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things, and they have to defend their positions for metaphysical reasons.
Ben Stein: What if after you died you ran into God, and he says, what have you been doing, Richard? I mean what have you been doing? I've been trying to be nice to you. I gave you a multi-million dollar paycheck, over and over again with your book, and look what you did.

Richard Dawkins: Bertrand Russell had that point put to him, and he said something like: sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?

Ben Stein: [voice over] But, if the Intelligent Design people are right, he isn't hidden. We may even be able to encounter God through science, if we have the freedom to go there. What could be more intriguing than that?
David Berlinski: Suppose we find, simply as a matter of fact, that our scientific inquiries point in one direction: a creator. Why should we eliminate that from discussion? 'Strang verboten'? How come? Why?
David Berlinski: Before you can ask is Darwinian Theory correct or not, you have to ask the preliminary question, is it clear enough so that it could be correct. That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian Theory is: man that thing is just a mess. It's like looking into a room full of smoke. Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined and delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from Mathematical Physics. And Mathematical Physics lacks all of the rigor one expects from Mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual decent down the level of intelligibility, until we reach Evolutionary Biology. We don't even know what a species is, for heaven sakes!
Michael Egnor: There's nothing to be learned in neurosurgery by assuming an accidental origin for the parts of the brain we work on.
Ben Stein: We are losing our freedom in one of the most important sectors of society: science. I have always assumed that scientists were free to ask any question, to pursue any line of inquiry, without fear of reprisal. But recently I've been alarmed to discover that this is not the case.
Stephen C. Meyer: We don't know what caused life to arise. Did it arise by purely undirected process? Or did it arise by some kind of intelligent guidance or design? And the rules of science are being applied to actually foreclose one of the two possible answers that very basic, and fundamental, and important question.
David Berlinski: It'd be nice to see the scientific establishment lose some of its prestige and power. It'd be nice to see other questions being opened up. Above all, it'd be nice to have a real spirit of self-criticism penetrating the sciences.
Alister McGrath: Richard Dawkins has a charming, and very I think interesting view of the relationship between science and religion. They're at war with each other. And in the end, one's got to win. And it's going to be science. It's a very naive view. It's based on a complete historical misrepresentation of the way science and religion has been directed. Dawkins seems to think that scientific description is an anti-religious argument. Describing how something happens scientifically, somehow explains it away. It doesn't. But the questions of purpose, intentionality, the question why, still remain there on the table.
Ben Stein: I'm finally just beginning to grasp the complexity of the cell. Are there systems within the cell that go well beyond Darwinian evolution? Some type of cellular technology that drives adaptation, replication, quality control and repair? What if these new mechanisms have massive design implications? Well I say, so be it.
Ben Stein: Hasn't this all been resolved? I mean, aren't we all Darwinists now? Except for a few cranks like you?

Paul Nelson: Well, it's a funny thing that questions that aren't properly answered don't go away. This question is loaded with all kinds of political baggage. But one on one, in a scientific meeting, after the third or fourth beer, my experience has been that many evolutionary biologists will say, yeah, this theory's got a lot of problems.