Last night, I attended a “Difficult Dialogue” forum at the law school. The Christian Law Students (CLS) and the ACLU jointly put this together. The topic of discussion was the issue of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. Two scientist and two lawyers were presenting the views. Each was given fifteen minutes to talk with a five-minute question time. The dean of the school gave instructions (some students attended as part of a class assignment) on how to approach this topic. We were to remain objective and open to the ideas that were being presented. We were to remember to ask our questions as one who doesn’t have a strong opinion on the issue.

Given those ground rules, the discussion began. The first scientist was an engineer who advocated Intelligent Design. Before he began with Intelligent Design, he made sure to establish the difference in approaching science. One approach is driven by religion (from a spiritual to a naturalistic one – a belief in a thing); the other is driven by observation. This distinction is very important. As the dean had cautioned the class to suspend judgment that is precisely what a scientist needs to do. This is a learned behavior; human nature is to interpret all things through our belief system. Scientists and lawyers are not immune to our natural inclination (and there was plenty of that last night). Then the engineer for design gave quotes from leading evolutionary scientists supporting the idea of design in nature. When the cell was being studied at the beginning, scientists thought that it was a pretty simple thing. Now they are finding that the cell has operations that are of the order of high computer program - design. During his presentation, he was easy going and fun. While the audience question him, he remained acutely aware of what he was qualified and not qualified on and was honest in his answers. The quotes and evidence he presented gave a compelling look at what Design meant and why we should consider it scientifically. He admitted to being a Christian, but added that there were agnostics, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims that believe this theory. I would add the odd physics class that begins to think that our universe is just one of many multiverses (this is an idea floating around). When this idea came up in one of my physics classes, the professor began joking around that perhaps our universe was started by a lab experiment for a grad student in another universe. This would fulfill the design idea and not be religious at all; it is, however, more Men In Blackish. Before the talk, I was explaining to some of my husband’s classmates, that ID is not religious and different from Creationism. But ID can encompass aspects of both Creation and Evolution. Because ID is a door for those of us who believe in literal six day Creation, I encourage this man’s work.

After his talk, the audience was very pleased with him and open to hear more of this idea. Then came the evolutionist. He was crass and arrogant. Honestly, I can’t say anything good about his presentation. Except perhaps his speech flowed better. He did not engage the audience; he immediately let us know that he was above us. He lauded that there was nothing about Intelligent Design in any peer review scientific journal in the library. He was decidedly closed minded to any discussion about origins other than evolution. He kept referring to ID as Creationism renamed. (I adamantly disagree with that, as a Creationist.) And he gave a quick nod that the creation myth should be taught along with the Hopi, Aztec, etc… myths, but not in any science class. During his questioning, many in the audience were displeased with his presentation and the questions reflected that. One woman questioned him on the peer review journals. In the archives of the journals are some articles of junk science that people believed at one time. He purported that because ID wasn’t in them, then they are not genuine science. She questioned then if these journals represent valid science then would those say of some from psychiatry that was decidedly bad science be considered as scientific none-the-less. He back-peddled on what he actually said, saying that she misunderstood and didn’t answer her. After his talk when the dean asked how the room was feeling, it was obvious this man had offended the sensibilities of even the most liberal in the room.

The lawyers were next. The ACLU lawyer was up first. He was fun and energetic. I, as a non-lawyer, learned a bit from him. My husband, being in his first semester and studying constitutional issues in undergrad, was disappointed. I will admit though, that this man didn’t really address why this idea of ID was unconstitutional except to say that the founders wrote into the First Amendment the idea of separation. It is not spelled out there, but Thomas Jefferson (who did not write nor sign the Constitution nor was present for the debates on it) stated the idea of separation to the Danbury Baptists in a letter. The lawyer didn’t expound on the context of the letter. I did, however, enjoy his presentation, though I feel that he didn’t fulfilled the requirement of why ID is unconstitutional. During his question time, the audience did reflect questions of inquiry, which he proceeded not to answer directly. One question was asked by two members of the audience and he still didn’t answer it. That question basically was if ID were shown to be non-religious, would it then be constitutional. We still don’t know. It was obvious that he was well received.

People at this point had been leaning on being open to ID and those who were staunchly against it were more quiet. Until a well meaning, but bull-headed of a man, spoke denouncing evolution and prancing around reasons why his daughter is in a private, Christian school. The feel of the audience took a decided turn and the evolutionist snoot knew it. This out spoken, non-thinking Christian man destroyed the credibility the first speaker had gained. I was disappointed.

The last lawyer, pro-ID, followed up after that fiasco and it didn’t help that this lawyer wasn’t that great of a speaker. His speech was less organized than the ACLU one, but you could tell that he was very intelligent himself and had a lot swirling in his mind. His man point was that educational decisions of the schools belong to the community and the school board, not the government or the courts. An excellent question was asked at the end and none of the speakers attempted an answer. This impressive woman stood and asked if creation were found to be true, beyond all doubt, but the people were mostly supportive of evolution would it then be constitutional and what if the opposite were the case, evolution was found to be true and the people mostly supported creation. Good for theory, but not for answers.

All in all it was a great night. I was able to be with my husband for a few hours while my parents watched and spoiled the kids.