Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Merits of intelligent design, evolution debated
(By Brian Wellman, SMU Campus Daily, April 26, 2006)

The hot topic of Intelligent Design and Evolution was debated and discussed between Raymond Bohlin and Wes Elsberry last night at the Hughes-Trigg Theater at SMU.

Bohlin, the representative of Intelligent Design, is president of Probe Ministries, which is an apologetics and worldview educational organization based out of Richardson, Texas.

He achieved his doctorate in molecular and cell biology from the University of Texas at Dallas, and currently lives in Garland.

Elsberry, an Evolutionist, is a biologist who earned his doctorate in wildlife and fisheries at Texas A&M University, and is currently the Information Project Director for the National Center for Science Education.

The debate, moderated by political science professor Joseph Kobylka, lasted for approximately forty minutes, as students and professors watched two intellectual scientists battle it out.

Last night's event, that was sponsored by SMU's Political Science Symposium, was initially supposed to cover the legal issue on whether Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught in public schools. However, the exchange between respective advocates reached a deeper level, when in-depth issues of technicalities, philosophies, science and religion were brought up in the dialogue.

Each representative from both sides of the debate was given fifteen minutes to deliver their presentation. Bohlin, the proponent of ID, went first.

Bohlin initially explained to the audience exactly what Intelligent Design is, claiming that it's a "challenge to Darwinism" that offers a "scientific investigation of effects of intelligent causes." Essentially ID is a theory that proposes that there are parts to a cell that are simply too complex to have been evolved, that rather they have been altered by some sort of "designer."

With a "if it looks designed, maybe it is!" motto, he continued to further explain ID with an analogy. Take, for example, a message in the sand at a beach. If an innocent passerby was walking along the shore and came upon "John loves Mary" written in the sand, the particular discoverer would undoubtedly conclude that some sort of a designer left the message, and it couldn't have happened naturally.

The same concept was further explained, in greater detail, with regards to the flagella of a cell, perhaps a bacterium.

Elsberry's fifteen minute presentation was nothing but sheer rebuttal and refutation. Claming that ID "isn't even a science," the biologist stated that "anti-evolutionists have utilized political action to gain government support for teaching ID in public schools."

Many people have argued that the theory of Intelligent Design is just a back door tactic for teaching - if not mandating ?- the Christian faith.

Elsberry went on to claim that "Intelligent Design" is simply an evolved name, stemming from "Creation Science" and "Creationism."

After claiming that the theory is merely wishful thinking, he began discussing the technical and scientific justifications that ID is not even a testable hypothesis.

After the debate was finished, students and others that attended were encouraged to propose questions to each debater, some of which struck heated and interesting conversation.

After nearly forty-five minutes of open dialogue, Kobylka thanked each scientist and their audience for attending.

Sorry-I hadn't seen wande's post of the totally hopeless debate at the SMU campus.

Do you think anti-IDers are getting rattled? What did you think of my last question?

'Creationist' school is praised
(BBC News, April 26, 2006)

Emmanuel College, in Gateshead, is backed by Christian philanthropist Sir Peter Vardy, whose beliefs have made him a controversial figure.

The city technology college was called "remarkable" in the latest report.
It is now one of only 12 secondary schools in the country to have received three consecutive top ratings.

Emmanuel College has a strong Christian ethos but has attracted controversy by teaching Biblical creationism as well as evolutionary theory.

***********************************************

National Union of Teachers leader Steve Sinnott recently said wealthy businessmen should not be able to exert "undue influence" over the way academies were run.

Nigel McQuoid, who chairs Emmanuel's governing body, said: "For Sir Peter Vardy, who so often bears the brunt of unfair criticism over his personal financial support of Emmanuel College and its sister academies in Middlesbrough and Doncaster, this is a hat-trick of which he and everyone connected with Emmanuel is rightly proud."

Sir Peter said recently he believed God had created the Earth and man in his own image.

"Quite how long it took him I don't know and frankly I don't care," he said.

If God had wanted to create the Earth in six days he could have done, he added - but he said that he, as sponsor, had no say in what was taught in the schools.

The Emmanuel foundation says its schools teach the theory of evolution, as required by the national curriculum for science.

Creation is taught in religious education. But the two concepts "touch" at points, it says.

This approach has the approval of the Department for Education and Skills and Ofsted, it says, so parents can be assured the issue is not presented as "certain more sensationalist commentators" suggest.

The foundation (ESF) "holds that God made the world and all that is in it".
"ESF holds also that the Bible is God's Word to the world and that it is true."

Jones talks judicial caution
(By MICHELLE STARR, York Daily Record, Apr 26, 2006)

The judicial branch is no place for politics, Judge John E. Jones III told a crowd Tuesday afternoon at Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg.

The federal judge from Pottsville ruled in December that Dover's intelligent-design policy was unconstitutional. Since then, he has been the target of various comments, and some of the negative criticisms concern him.

Jones was among the speakers at a two-day convocation at the Gettysburg Lutheran Theological Seminary. Though he was slated to speak about the Constitution's Establishment Clause - that Congress cannot pass laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof" - as part of the seminary's spring convocation, he instead talked about the broader issue of the public blurring the lines between the branches of government.

The talk is one of about 12 he scheduled from January through May. He said he's going to take advantage of the opportunity to educate the public, which he said few judges tend to do.

The judicial system is no place for political leanings or for judges to use their jobs to rule in favor of the majority opinion, he said. That is the role of the executive and legislative branches. Instead, judges should make decisions based on the law, not based on personal affiliation, he said.

"We must remember that we have a rule of law," he said. "It is not a conservative or liberal value. It is not a Republican or Democratic value . . .The rule is rather an American value."

He called on those attending to work against what he called the dumbing down that is occurring in America.

After the talk, he said he had known that public opinion was leaning toward the belief that politics rule on the bench, but he didn't realize the magnitude until the high-profile Dover case landed on his docket.

It was after he gave his 139-page opinion against Dover Area School District that some comments - including those made on a Bill O'Reilly show and in a Phyllis Schlafly column - crossed the line.

They weren't intellectual discussions about the establishment or the process he used to make his decision.

For example, Schlafly wrote, "Judge John E. Jones III could still be chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board if millions of evangelical Christians had not pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2000. Yet this federal judge, who owes his position entirely to those voters and the president who appointed him, stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

Jones cautioned the group to avoid labels as well because - as Schlafly's comments show - he had been pegged.

And even though the Rev. Michael Cooper-White, seminary president, asked Jones how his faith played a role in Jones' decision, Jones said his faith is personal and the greatest impact was when his pastor, Harold Hand of Trinity Lutheran Church in Pottsville, gave him a hug the day after the ruling was issued.

Hand had told Jones that he was proud. On Tuesday, Hand added, "I was certainly hoping that was the way he was going to rule."

After Jones' speech, members in the crowd asked questions or offered comments on issues ranging from the separation of church and state to actions made by the George W. Bush administration.

Some recognized the work of Jones and the teachers in Dover.
"We do certainly want to commend you for your courage," said Donald Moeser, an interim pastor at Bethel Lutheran Church in Trenton, N.J., and 1962 seminary graduate.

National Union of Teachers leader Steve Sinnott recently said wealthy businessmen should not be able to exert "undue influence" over the way academies were run.

Creation is taught in religious education. But the two concepts "touch" at points, it says.

and the tone of your last sentence seemed very angry to me.

That "created man in his own image" part is the most disturbing egotism ever written.