Current Events	Available Programs	ARK Kids Programs	Past Events	Area Events	AIG 1998

www.arky.org

Creation vs Evolution Debate, Friday, 19 Dec.

ASIDE ON FIRING LINE DEBATE TO BE AIRED DECEMBER 19 There was a debate on Firing Line concerning Creation versus Evolution. Bill Buckley, Mike Behe, Phil Johnson, and David Berlinski debated for creation. Barry Linn, Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, and Mike Ruse debated the evolution side. It you are interested in the debate, it will be broadcast December 19. Below is a summary impression by Greg Metzger of InterVarsity Press who was at the taping to observe.

There is a lot that could be said, but let me limit myself to four major points and encourage you all to watch it for yourselves.

1) There was no way to lose, in the broader sense of the word, this debate. Here we are being invited, at the initiative of Barry Linn who contacted Buckley, to air our views on a nationally televised 2-hour show with three of our leading lights on the panel--Behe, Johnson and Berlinski--accompanied by a veritable cultural icon, William Buckley. This legitimizes the I.D. position unlike any other single event that has yet occurred. Here you have nobody who could in anyway be called, nor were they called during the debate, a fundamentalist of the 6-day variety. You had brilliant minds setting forth key points in a civil setting. That, in and of itself, is a major victory that will last in the cultural imagination long after the specific points are forgotten. I firmly believe that if a Ken Woodward of Newsweek or a Peter Steinfels from New York Times or anybody in the media of that ilk watches this broadcast it will be emblazoned in their minds that the terms of the debate have changed.

2) The way things paired off was as follows:

Buckley vs. Linn Johnson vs. Scott Behe vs. Miller Berlinsky vs. Ruse

Barry was much stronger than Bill, but Bill has the cultural icon status going for him that I think somewhat diminishes the degree to which this is not really a vital issue to him or one that he has as much passion for. Barry's closing was quite strong, but overtly religious and Christian in its substance (quoting from John 1).

Phil was stronger than Eugenie, no doubt about it. He, far more than she, looked like the one who had been on Crossfire before. She was not bad, and was eloquent at points, but Phil was ready to rock from the opening bell.

Behe and Miller are pedagogical twins!! While I agree that Miller was strong, Michael did quite well considering that he was most definitely the focus of attention from the other side. That is a key point to realize--*Darwin's Black Box* was by far the most referred to text and was being treated as the explosive book that it is. Michael had to absorb their best shots on the book and did so very well. I would say Miller had a slight edge simply because he was more clearly on the offensive. But, he may have overdone the use of the charts. I recall the audience beginning to laugh when he pulled yet another one out. Also, I could see the monitors and they were not always able to capture what the charts were about. The producers told me after that unlike Michael, Miller had not prepared them for the fact that he was going to spring chart after chart. So I'm not sure how effective that will translate to the viewers. Miller being open about his Catholic beliefs was undoubtedly effective in the limited terms of this debate, but as I will spell out below, was also a sign of how much his side was backing off of the Goulds and Dawkins of the world.

David was hurt by the lack of an overall strategy, as he mentioned in his report. But the same could definitely be said for Ruse. David was a bit repetitive, but his presence on the team can not be overstated as it was repeatedly brought to people's attention that he is not a religious believer. This was particularly important in terms of setting in the viewers mind that this is *not* a "Bible against science" debate. It should also be said that Ruse came off as a lovable but slightly spacy philosopher professor. He even played this up some and while that made him personally attractive to a viewer, it also brought home the fact that brilliance and erudition was not present in all the panelists. Michael's heart just didn't seem in it.

3) The big losers in the debate were the materialists. I still can not get over the degree to which the other side was publicly running not only from the materialist presupposition, but also from the major materialists. Now this did serve to confuse the debate somewhat as it seemed that everyone was willing to acknowledge that belief in God was a fine virtue, so when Phil and Behe trotted out quotes from Lewontin and others the panelists simply said "we are not those people". While that was not rhetorically strong for Phil and Behe, it certainly allows us to press the point that they should be fighting those folks as strongly as they are fighting Phil and Behe. That point was made in passing by Buckley and Phil, but what most needed to happen, and where I think an opportunity was most missed, is that Bill should have concluded the debate saying something like this:

"We have heard things tonight from the other side that have been quite surprising. At every point along the way, the leading scientific voices, such as Carl Sagan and Daniel Dennett, have been explicitly backed away from and implicitly rebuked not simply by our side but by every member of the opposition. We are delighted to hear that stated here and consider it a major victory for our side, we urge the members of the opposition to make there opinions known to the powerful scientific establishment of which they are entrenched. For it is that establishment that has made doctrinaire materialism a stated presupposition and it is that establishment that has made any objection to their strict dogma a social sin to be severely punished. So while we rejoice in our victory tonight, we find it incumbent upon each of the members of the other side to back their words here with action in the editorial boards and government bodies to which they belong."

4) The upshot is that evolution was presented with a smiley God-face by the opposition. In so doing they scored significant debating points, but more importantly they revealed just how far they have been placed on the defensive in this debate and just how cracked the establishment is becoming. We must rush into this opening and press our points with continued vigor. But, and this is the last point I will make, be prepared for what I call the Jesse Jackson question. Remember how everyone wanted to know "what Jesse wants" when he was running for president a while back. That is becoming a mantra from the opposition. What do we want to see the books say and the establishment deny? Just being asked that question shows how far things have come, but I would urge continued thought on this question in terms of short-term and long-term goals. I see the debate moving towards a day where folks say "O.K. you have made your point, now what do you want to be done?"

So, be heartened David, Phil and Michael. Your labor was certainly not in vain.

Greg Metzger InterVarsity Press ph: 630-887-2500 gmetzger@ivpress.com 430 E. Plaza Drive fax: 630-887-2520 Westmont, IL 60559	Michael Sorgius 2943 NW 25th Terrace Gainesville, FL 32605 (352) 372-2114 fax (352) 377-1607 sorgius@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Announcing L E A D E R S H I P U . Check out the slick, new feel of our web site for Christian leaders! http://www.leaderu.com Come by and visit our virtual campus	Our own Christian Faculty Fellowship homepage! Come visit us at http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~cff

Howard Van Cleave -
Midwest Director, Christian Leadership Ministries
Faculty Christian Fellowship at The Ohio State University
Email: vancleave.2@osu.edu (614) 267-8323
4601 No. High Street, Suite #207 Columbus - OHIO 43214

For I seek not to understand in order that I may believe;
but I believe in order that I may understand,
for I believe for this reason:
that unless I believe, I cannot understand.