What happens when researchers from competing scientific worldviews sit down for an honest conversation? In this dialogue, three thinkers—exploring Neo-Darwinism, Third Way evolution, and Intelligent Design—discover unexpected common ground while respecting disagreements. Denis Noble (Oxford University, Third Way evolution, www.thethirdwayofevolution.com), Casey Luskin (Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, www.evolutionnews.org), and Perry Marshall (Evolution 2.0, bridge-builder, www.evo2.org) engage in the kind of scientific discourse that’s increasingly rare: genuine curiosity about opposing viewpoints without the usual academic tribalism.
A Third Way evolutionist who challenges both Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy AND Intelligent Design assumptions
An ID theorist who genuinely appreciates criticisms of mainstream evolutionary theory
Discoveries of shared ground where opponents thought none existed
Honest wrestling with profound questions about consciousness, agency, and the nature of life itself
This isn’t just another evolution debate. It’s a case study in how scientists engage across ideological divides to advance understanding. The most profound insights often emerge not from echo chambers, but from healthy tension between opposing ideas. “We don’t substitute any certainties whatsoever… let it evolve. Let us find out, let us, for God’s sake, be open to what it might be that we discover.” —Denis Noble
Venn Diagram comparing claims of NeoDarwinism (“Neo-D”), Third (“3rd”) Way Evolution, and Intelligent Design (“ID”): https://evolutionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CaseyLuskinNeo-D-3rdWay-ID-PosterCELS2025V1.pdf
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Interesting discussion and I like that it illustrated that people can disagree without yelling or using ad hominem attacks. As Casey said, I’ll be interested to see what natural genetic engineering can do. However, where did natural genetic engineering come from originally? it seems to me that the more it can do, the more this suggests that an intelligent source is required.