Intelligent Design versus Evolution debate

I was privileged to attend Tuesday night’s debate at Jacksonville University billed as Evolution vs. Intelligent design. I was pleased on several counts. First, the quality of the debaters and the civility of the overall exchange were exemplary. And second I can happily report that the Truth was well represented in Professor Paul Nelson’s position. For the benefit of those not fortunate enough be seated center stage on the second row, I am referring to the position of intelligent design.

The supreme irony that became apparent as the event unfolded was that the school of thought which has long billed itself the representative of science and enlightenment, presented an argument that was practically devoid of scientific merit, whist the camp of so-called superstition and religion gave a superb presentation of scientific fact and emotionless reason.

FSU philosophy professor (and part-time Darwin worshiper) Michael Ruse was clearly a skilled debater with a well-developed sense of comic timing, and a demonstrated mastery of the witty rejoinder.



But it must be said by any objective observer that he gave short service to his camp’s position that the matchless complexity of the biosphere is the result of mindless natural forces. He and his ilk are ready to consider any and all possibilities regardless of the statistical improbability; all save one possibility: that intelligence may have played a part in the present state of the biological universe. Because to admit intelligence simply points the seeker to the begged question of “Who”, which most of us would naturally assume to be …dare I say it? God! I hesitate because of the obvious discomfort that Professor Ruse began to display at any point where his and our consideration were involuntarily pointed upwards.

Oh he did fine in his lengthy (and wholly irrelevant) dissertation on the history of the debate where his sole point seemed to be the need to carefully label the various Christian parties as either “traditional” or “conservative/evangelical”. But I thought I detected from my second row seat almost a trembling in him when he uttered the latter of the two. I hyperbolize slightly for literary effect, but in truth Dr. Ruse position was best summed up as:

- The entire Intelligent Design argument is nothing more than Christians with an agenda!
- There just cannot be the possibility of anything supernatural (God)
- The various schools of biblical interpretation actually is a factor to be considered (I’m not kidding!)
- A veiled inference that ignorant southern Americans have had a disproportionate role in the debate thereby lessening its validity as debatable in the first place
- The debate at large is really only in America – the implication being that Europeans are above such plebian considerations and there must be something wrong with America that we would still give any thought to a God figure

But again…the perfect counterweight to the smoke and mirrors of Ruse’s presentation was the factual and unemotional position espoused by Professor Paul Nelson of Biola University.



He remained focused and factual, and consistently rested his positions on scientific observations, whether it was the extraordinarily complex sequence of chemical reactions necessary for blood to clot, or the inexplicable development of irreducibly complex physiological systems like the eyeball. He was at once unflappable and imperturbable throughout the pointed questioning of hostile audience members and the emotional see-saw displayed by his opponent.

I struggled to keep my cool – but Professor Nelson showed no sign of losing his. Where he simply stuck to the merits of his position, I would have probably devolved into counter-pointing the inanities that masqueraded as debate coming from Mike Ruse.

I would have pointed out the hypocrisy of saying the opponent’s camp is motivated by an agenda as if an entire lifetime of cheerleading for Godless evolution was simply the natural result of impartial and unbiased interest.

I would have made the point that whether St Augustine was a traditional Christian and not a conservative Christian has exactly no bearing on the merits of either evolution OR intelligent design. I kept wondering if Professor Ruse had ever heard the phrase “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”.

I was definitely not convinced that Professor Ruse’s sole beef with America was limited to Diet Pepsi. I have a sneaking suspicion that Christians, and particularly southern American Christians are a lot lower on his list than Diet Pepsi. But again, I failed to see how the venue of the debate, or the nationality of the opponents, had even one iota of bearing on the issue at hand. I was moved to an involuntary outburst when a man stood up and gave the following observation:

Paraphrased: I was raised and educated on the evolutionist (atheist) side of the debate. But today I am a Christian, as well as being a medical Doctor and molecular biologist. I was eventually swayed by the incredible complexity and phenomenal order of the natural universe. And by the way, I’m proud to be an American.

To Professor Paul Nelson I want to say “You did a fine job Dr.”

To Professor Michael Ruse I would like to say “Professor you unwittingly validated an aspect of my own personal theory regarding the agenda of those in your camp. I believe that you are motivated to exorcise God from every corner of the universe in order to free yourselves from any feelings of guilt for the oftentimes immoral lifestyle you so often pursue (I am speaking collectively). Your gleeful embrace of sex and sexuality at every point in the discussion belied your real goal: which female college senior might be sufficiently beguiled by your shallow veneer of charm and wit.