Evolution Debate:
The CSU Community, Professor Joe Ross, Professor Mike Gormley, Professor Victor O. Aimiuwu, Professor Jeffrey Crawford, Professor Lee Ingham, Dr Rebecca Ertel and students [see current ShoutOuts]
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Charles Darwin continues to ignite controversy morn than a century after his death. Professors and students alike debate Darwin’s theory of evolution. These are excerpts from a recent Internet debate among faculty.
The debate started when a faculty member questioned why some scientists accept that role of an “intelligent designer” in the emergence of modern devices — such as the camcorder, for example — yet do not accept the role of an “intelligent designer” in the emergence of human life.
Professor Joe Ross
The history of the development of the camcorder supports rather than contradicts the theory of evolution. The camcorder is an amalgamation of many technologies that evolved and mutated (Many of the advances in the history of camcorders were not deliberate.) over several centuries. As a result, there are many camcorder fossils located in various museums including the Smithsonian around the world.
Thus, the current state of the camcorder is analogous to the situation surrounding Homo sapiens (humans). That is, over time there were many changes that led to more successful versions of both. The versions that were not successful are well represented in the fossil record. This is true of both the camcorder and humans.
Professor Mike Gormley
It probably doesn’t make sense to stand in the middle of a duel, but I will proceed anyway.
Let’s first acknowledge that many people of faith — including many Christians — accept the theory of evolution, as easily as they accept Genesis. For these people, there is no conflict between science and faith.
The process of evolution is “vastly complex.” It seems to be the work of an “intelligent designer.” I believe most scientists see it this way. You can believe in the scientific record and still believe in God.
As far as education is concerned, I believe that evolution should be taught in public schools. You may consider it a fact or simply a theory. Either way, evolution comes out of the world of science.
I do not believe that creationism should be taught in public schools. You may consider it a fact or simply a theory. Either way, creationism comes out of the world of faith.
Professor Victor O. Aimiuwu
I always find this argument unnecessary. Let us go back to the Beginning. The two views of Creation are not mutually exclusive: whether the universe was created from an explosion of a primordial bundle of energy (The Big Bang) or the Biblical version of “Let there be light!” both agree that energy was there at creation. How do we account for this Original Energy?
Professor Jeffrey Crawford
I guess I don’t see the questions of mutual exclusivity or of agreement. I think that the various versions of the Big Bang that qualify as science and the Biblical account(s) of creation are in such totally different languages that either exclusivity or agreement isn’t an option.
I might be trying to sell some “funny” merchandise here, but in the text “and God said ‘Let there be light’ and there was light” it is hard for me to see how the folks who wrote that could be taken as meaning the same thing by ‘light’ as the folks who talk about what time, space, matter, and energy had to be (or might have been) like at 10 to the minus 43rd of a second after the Big Bang … It just doesn’t seem to me that people saying the word “light” in the two different frameworks are talking about “the same thing” i.e. energy.
Professor Lee Ingham
I think it is possible (and maybe even probable) that the two references to “light” could be similar or synonymous, but they were certainly contextual. The early understanding was limited to what was known (believed) then and now that we have evolved, we say what our best understanding is. You know we can’t step in the same river twice, so we make a step and then another as the evolutionary process continues. Perhaps, that was the best science at that time. Ptolemy was replaced? by Copernicus, not without a big fight.
So maybe, just maybe, if the debate continues, we might learn more and let the chips fall where they may. A luta continua, or in other words, “the beat goes on?
Dr Rebecca Ertel
I find it far more sensible to maintain in public policy and public schools the reasoning and results of the science that brought us the lowly camcorder than to interject some form of the myriad faiths that, while bringing comfort to many, have also brought so much conflict and division among the peoples of the world.
You may argue that intelligent design is theory not faith. If so, it is a theory that has sprung from faith and leads quickly back to faith. Are you not even now quoting the book of your faith, the Bible, in support of it?
I may be a fool, but I am not foolish enough to believe that the move to teach intelligent design in our schools is not ultimately a move to preach faith in our schools.
.:. Top of Page
MARAUDERTALK