The Debate
at MSU:
As Ugly as a Basketball Shutout
|
Author: Doug Sharp |
Essays by
Author |
Have you ever seen a peewee league basketball game where one team gets shut out 28 – 0? That is what it was like on the Michigan State University campus when Intelligent Design proponent Dr. Tom Woodward debated evolutionist MSU professor Dr. Donald Weinshank. The issue was whether or not Intelligent Design theory should be taught in the public schools. I had hoped that the presentation would include some information and arguments that were fresh and challenging. Instead, both sides presented standard arguments that have been around for 20 to 30 years, and neither side presented anything that had a knockout punch, although Dr. Weinshank presented his open chin to his opponent with his gloves behind his back many times. In order to score points in such a debate, an evolutionist would need to (1) present an argument that hasn’t already been refuted on a creationist or ID web site in their FAQ’s or (2) neutralize or refute a standard ID argument or (3) send me scurrying to the library to dig up references.
Two-thirds of Dr. Weinshank’s presentation dealt with religious issues and problems, something that violated the rules he supposedly is defending. It was interesting that he talked mostly about religion and Dr. Woodward talked science. This emphasizes our point that the primary function for macroevolution is as an apologetic for liberal theology or atheism, and does not have a great deal of predictive value for hard, practical science or technology. The time that was spent on the theological side of the argument validated our opinion that evolution, being a philosophy that uses scientific evidence to back it up is religious in nature, and if we are to be fair, we should allow those who disagree an equal opportunity in the classroom to present the scientific evidence for their side.
Dr. Woodward began his presentation with the well-recognized scientific fact that the fossil record clearly shows that the lowest layer of fossil bearing rock, the Cambrian period, contains the widest variety of fossil creatures of all of the strata, and that variety decreases as you go higher on the geologic column. He also mentioned that there are huge gaps in the fossil record that are breaks in the expected continuous sequence predicted by evolutionists. Darwin recognized this problem, but hoped that with further research there would be new discoveries that would bridge these gaps. Unfortunately for evolutionists, these gaps are just as wide now as they were in Darwin’s day.
Dr. Woodward continued with a brief history of the Intelligent Design movement, citing ID pioneers Drs. Michael Denton, Philip Johnson and Michael Behe. He showed a brief video clip with a quotation from Michael Behe, and a demonstration of the evidence for intelligent design in the rotor mechanism that drives flagella in bacteria. The point in this was that there were too many interdependent parts required for this to have come about by chance.
Dr. Weinshank did not address the central issue of explaining how random chance evolution could produce functioning molecular machines such as the flagellum. Instead he chose to start his presentation using a theological trick called dysteleology: which is to claim that if there is a God, He is a poor designer. Dr. Weinshank cited his bad back; high blood pressure and all sorts of other ailments, which he concludes were the result of evolutionary chance. However, this is not a scientific argument, but a theological conundrum that is very easy to solve if he understood the basics of the Christian and Jewish faith. The answer is found in the beginning with Genesis where Adam, created “very good” (not perfect, only God is perfect), fell into sin and came under a curse. That curse not only affected Adam, but also the world around him and future generations. This is the very center of the Christian message, that God sent His son Jesus to die on the cross as a substitute for us, taking the punishment for sin so that we can receive forgiveness and eternal life. I overheard Dr. Weinshank talking to a young person after the meeting, and he basically has theological problems with the sin of Adam and the fall of man. He can take issue with this if he wants to, but this is clearly explained in the Bible and is the central message of Christianity and his own Jewish faith. God, being perfect, has no obligation to make his creation perfect, and there isn’t anything in the Bible that says it is supposed to be perfect. There is a penalty for sin, whether self-inflicted, inflicted by others, or accumulated over generations. I find it ironic that the mutations that cause us pain and suffering in our bodies are what evolutionists place their hope in explaining the diversity and evolution of life. More information about this argument from dysteleology can be found at http://www.rae.org/perfect.html “Is God a Perfect Designer?” But his own argument against design is flawed in that all he would have to do to demonstrate his thesis is to duplicate the design of the human body, and show how it can come about by naturalistic means.
Dr. Weinshank used the ad-hominem fallacy “Creationists do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.” This is simply not true, as many creationists have outstanding accomplishments outside of creation publishing. In the article “Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?” (http://www.rae.org/crepub.html) David Buckna has compiled a list of these. However, knowing that there is a “natural selection” process that takes place where biased editors automatically reject openly creationist articles for publication in these journals, and the fact that many creationists want to support their own journals with quality research, there are good reasons why creationists tend to publish in their own peer-reviewed journals.
Dr. Weinshank spent a considerable amount of time on theological arguments, discussing his own Jewish faith, quoting from liberal theologian Paul Tillich and saying that “science is about how” and “religion is about why.” He had the audience repeat after him, “We don’t know.” The he declared that we were “now all scientists.” But on the other hand, he accused intelligent design theorists of believing in the “god of the gaps,” using God as an explanation without searching out an alternative answer. But he fails to realize that evolutionists do the same thing, except that they place their faith in the ability of man to figure things out eventually. Their “idol of the gaps” is humanistic faith that maybe after 100 more years of research, man will find an answer.
This argument fails to answer the central questions that Dr. Woodward brought up, that it is easy to recognize design when multiple components making up a molecular machine do not come together by chance. It is much like when I visited a co-worker’s cubicle, I didn’t find him there, and so I stood several of his felt-tip pens on end and placed one on the arm of his chair. Though nobody had seen me come, and nobody had seen me go, he immediately concluded that I had been at his cubicle because I had left evidence that could not have come about by chance. Similarly in his creation God left adequate evidence for his presence by assembling his creation in such a way that without his hand it would have not come together. As my co-worker would not argue that all of the molecules in his felt-tip pen moved in one direction by chance so that the pen stood on end all by itself, we can conclude that interdependent systems do not happen by accident. DNA codes for DNA polymerase, but DNA polymerase is needed to make DNA. It is a totally reasonable conclusion that this system was designed by God, and is not a product of evolution. And this hold true whether or not some brilliant scientist gets a DNA – DNA polymerase reaction to work from off-the-shelf dead chemicals, which, as far as I know, has never been accomplished.
Dr. Weinshank as a biochemist is probably aware of the great chemical challenges that face researchers in origin of life experiments. He should know that reactions that assemble proteins are highly reversible in the opposite direction of evolution. If he wanted to impress the ID crowd and score points, he could offer arguments that either neutralize or invalidate the many arguments that Behe, Berlinski, or Denton bring forth. If he explained the origin of induction and repression in biochemical reactions that provides a servomechanism regulating the quantity of substrate produced, he would score points. If he demonstrates a natural purification process for left-handed amino acids from their right-handed equivalent, he could neutralize an ID argument that has been around for over 30 years. If he showed a natural non-biological process for the origin of chlorophyll, he might be able to impress someone. But the fact that these problems have existed for years without solution solidifies the conclusion that these systems were a product of intelligent design. Instead, Dr. Weinshank’s discourse contained distractions, fallacies, and errors. There was very little science presented and his main points consisted of theological arguments. I cannot in good conscience give these any points at all. For example, he asked, “How many people in this room have won the lottery?” Nobody raised his or her hand. Then he asked, “How many think that it is possible for someone to win the lottery?” This time, practically everyone’s hands went up. By this, he was trying to refute Dr. Woodward’s statistical argument. But he forgets that even if the odds were one in a billion (109) of winning the lottery, it hardly compares to the odds of life coming about by chance (one in 1040,000) as calculated by Hoyle.
Dr. Weinshank raised the specter of the “slippery slope.” “If we allow intelligent design theory to be taught in the classroom, then eventually we will have creationism taught exclusively.” Of course, that is not what we advocate. Very few creationists advocate the teaching of creation exclusively without presenting the evolutionary side. In fact, some creationist professors under the constraints of their institution teach evolution exclusively, yet when they are finished, none of the students believe it. That’s because the fallacies are self-evident when they present the entire theory. I am sure that William Jennings Bryan was concerned about the “slippery slope” when he defended the teaching of creation. Now that we are at the bottom, the tables are turned. Now ironically we creation scientists advocate what Clarence Darrow proposed: “It is a form of bigotry not to teach both opinions.”
Toward the end of the debate, Dr. Weinshank set a trap for his opponent by demanding, “Tell us who your God is.” Coming from an ID position, Dr. Woodward did not take the bait, for if he had, Dr. Weinshank would have castigated him for being one of those wild-eyed fundamentalist creationists who believe the Bible. Now I have no such qualms in identifying myself clearly in the young-earth creationist camp, but at least Dr. Woodward was consistent with his own thesis.
I was a little disappointed that Dr. Woodward missed some opportunities to educate the audience about the fallacies in Dr. Weinshank’s arguments. But what was really fascinating was when Dr. Weinshank used the term “design” in describing a feature of a creature, and then when caught by the audience, tried to recover by saying “genetically engineered.” They can’t get away from intelligent design even if they want to!
Dr. Donald Weinshank is a professor of Computer Science and Engineering at Michigan State University. He earned his Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin in 1969. Dr. Tom Woodward is a professor of Philosophy of Science at Trinity College of Florida. His Ph.D. is in Rhetoric of Science, University of South Florida, 2001.
Return to the top of this Essay
This page last updated 3/30/2002
Back to the Revolution Against Evolution home page
The Creation Bookstore
Revolution Against Evolution TV Show
Creation Essays
Seminars and Class Schedule
Online Books
Other online resources
Frequently Asked Questions
The Amy Foundation Website
Mount Hope Church
The Revolution Against Evolution has had over one million visitors since 4/28/97.
. 
. Contact rae.org or send comments
about this page HERE.