I created a YouTube playlist: "Religion & Science: Haught, Dennett, & Wilson": http://www.youtube.com/user/TomUsherRLCC#grid/user/C98DF2A26E993F54 and added the following description:
John Haught, David Sloan Wilson, and Daniel Dennett as a panel discuss religion and science in 8 parts.
Intelligent Design is not exclusive to the self-styled Fundamentalists. Theistic evolution is not inconsistent with figurative interpretations of scripture. The underlying mechanics of Darwinian selection is a design. There are those who choose to insist that there can be no intelligence there. The atheist versus the agnostic is arguing from arrogance concerning this matter. Christian professors come in many stripes. Some have never had what they deem a metaphysical experience. The scientist can always say that there is hidden material technology behind all happenings. Otherwise, they don't "know" it. They simply believe it.
Scientism is exactly what Daniel Dennett practices. He repeated that he subjects all of John Haught's "hypotheses" to the scientific method as he, Dennett, defines that method. I say as he defines it because he includes in the "sciences" the social sciences in which he also includes psychology, although many psychologist would take umbrage with that notion that their system is not founded now at least on the "hard" sciences. He does apply it to all issues. It is his ideology whether he calls that fact nonsense or not.
The fact is that there is no possibility for me to speak to Daniel Dennett in any meaningful way since everything I say speaks right past him. He wants signs and wonders upon demand or he won't believe. That's exactly the point of separation of which Jesus spoke when he said to beware the leaven of the Pharisees and what Jesus meant when he said we aren't to test or tempt God. Those who insist upon it are precluded in the end. The proof is the outcome. We shall see.
At least David Wilson admitted to how religiosity can be applied to scientism. Of course, science is faith-based. It has no choice. Its faith is in itself. Whatever can be revealed, will be reveal via scientific methodology they think and believe. There is no revelation coming from spirit because they haven't scientifically (as they use the terms science, facts, knowledge, and the like) in their view, shown the spirit.
Haught's quote of Dawkins concerning scientism also refuted Dennett. Wilson said that Darwinism is the framework for investigating theology. Those aren't the exact terms he used, but they nevertheless apply. He doesn't allow for the opposite where scripture is used to evaluate Darwinism (not as Darwin applied it but as many scientists are nevertheless applying it as the end-all-be-all of truth and knowledge – not seeing it as even possibly a closed-looped).
I think science has gone down hill in that when I was young, the best scientists would never speak in absolutist terms but always remain open to discovering whole new ways of seeing. To me, there has been a great dumbing in that regard.