With a million+ views so far, Stephen Meyer hit a nerve with his recent interview on Piers Morgan Uncensored. Casey Luskin notes that some evolutionists, in response, are circulating a review of Return of the God Hypothesis from three years ago. It’s by theistic evolutionist Scott Buchanan and it is, frankly, pathetic. Read Dr. Luskin’s analysis here.

On the other hand, here’s a really well informed and eloquent piece for Crisis Magazine by theologian Scott Ventureyra. He summarizes the science of intelligent design and its increasing prominence in public discussions, but zeroes in on the relevance beyond science:

In his interview with Piers Morgan, [Meyer] discusses all these issues in a clear, concise, forceful, and insightful manner. At one point in the interview, Piers Morgan asks Meyer,  

“If you could get the answer to any of life’s great mysteries, if I said to you, come on, the two or three things you’d most like to know the answer to that no one’s ever worked out, what would they be?”

Meyer responds by discussing the grief he felt upon the recent passing of his mother (around the 19-minute mark). Meyer’s response brings to light why these metaphysical questions matter when considering poignant experiences, suffering, and the ultimate meaning and purpose of life: 

“Well, I just lost my mother, and I think the deepest and hardest questions in life are not actually these big metaphysical questions. I think if you think carefully about them, there’s a pretty clear answer; but I think it’s the questions that come up because of the events in your own life and sometimes suffering sometimes joys… Sometimes those are the questions I think are the hardest ones, the existential questions of one’s own personal experience…I think the experience of grief was something that was unexpected and how intense it was. She had dementia and had been in decline for several years. You think you’re prepared when you’re losing someone by degrees, but there’s a finality of death that I think overtakes all of us in that moment of grief, and there’s something about the grief experience that it seems to make everything else pale to insignificance in that moment, and I think it’s kind of my own view of it is just kind of a signal. Like your conscience tells you what’s right and wrong, I think grief is telling you about what’s really important and that in that instance what was important is that we had lost a person of eternal value…you’re never really prepared for the loss of a parent, and I thought I was, but I wasn’t.”

This is why Meyer’s work on ID and the question of God remains so relevant. He invites everyone, especially the skeptics, to think deeply about the nature of reality. His work provides a framework that can help people discover that life indeed has meaning, hope, and purpose. God’s existence provides the best explanation for understanding the world within (mental and spiritual realities) and the world without (physical-material reality). Meyer, through finding objective meaning in his life through his subjective experience, has been able to assist and provoke others to struggle, think more deeply, and potentially come to a similar conclusion by providing objective philosophical and scientific arguments.

In watching, I too was struck by Dr. Meyer’s reflections, the first time in public that I’m aware of, on his mom’s passing. Coincidentally, I then came across note marks I’d made some while back on striking comments, also about the “nature of reality,” by Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik. The comments were provoked by Leviticus 21:1 about the experience of a human being’s passing: “In a word, death destroys a world.”

Read the rest of “The Cultural Relevance of Intelligent Design” at Crisis Magazine. And if you missed the interview with Piers Morgan, see it here: