I missed the first few minutes of the show but I got the feel throughout that
Ray disarmed Eugenie by not being a Young-earth Creationist. The callers'
questions were predictable.
My sympathies were with Ray so I might be a biased reporter, but when
presented with difficulties in evolution such as the lack of a standard set
of steps for the origin of life, she fell into the 'appeal to solipsism' that
I have oftened criticised creationists for. She said something to the effect
that we haven't been able to discover the proper set of steps leading to
life. This arm wave evades the problem of the lack of data and theories for
the origin of life. I find it as unpalatable in an evolutionist as I do in a
creationist.
The issue of the Big Bang came up early and one clearly saw that Eugenie
Scott's idea of where theology fit into the epistemological scheme was
anywhere that there was no evidence at all. It was alright to believe that
God produced the big bang. That is a theological issue and can not be proven
by science. She said that the exact nature of the designer was up to each
individual (or something like that) I think Eugenie Scott believes in the
God of the Gaps. :-)
Ray used that opening to his best advantage. He pointed out that there
might be other things in nature that showed design and as such the topic of
design could be discussed scientifically leaving the nature of the designer
up to each individual in the class. Ray won this one.
One caller asked about the role of chance in the origin of life and
expressed incredulity that anyone could believe that chance produced such
biological features as wings etc. Eugenie stated that evolution did not run
on chance and that it was natural selection which pushed evolution along.
She was obviously evading the role chance plays in mutation and Ray properly
called her on it. If I had been Eugenie I would have said something about
the fact that the laws of nonlinear dynamics make the odds of finding these
structures much more likely. Ray, you should run the selection program I put
out yesterday. One of these days someone will hit you with that point of
view.
On this one, it was a draw. Each side will feel their person one.
When design theory came up, Dr. Scott admitted that it was a different
formulation but that it shouldn't be taught because it hadn't been through
the scientific "ringer" yet. But then later, she said that design theory
looked a lot like the other kind of creationism. Ray did seem to have more
difficulty clearly defining design theory at least to this listener. I don't
think this was a fault of Ray's but it is a fault of the theory. I think
Eugenie looked better on this one.
The predictable question of just teach both, give equal time to each
view came up. Dr. Scott's answer was excellent. She stated that what should
be taught in each subject is the state of the art. She then raised the
stakes by saying "Some people believe that AIDS is God's judgment on man.
Should we teach that in Medical School?" But then she devolved into the red
herring of teaching Holocaust revisionism because some pressure groups want
that taught. Ray, I think, won this exchange in spite of Scott's generally
excellent answer. Dr. Bohlin pointed out that no one wanted bad science
taught but that we feel that we are having to bow to the scientific pressure
groups which won't even allow evolution to be taught with any of the contrary
evidence. Ray cited someplace, (my hearing aid didn't pick up where) that
the law simply said that contrary evidence was to be taught and the
anti-creationist foes blew the whole thing up into a Genesis affair. Scott
then came back with what I viewed as a sophistic reply. She said, "There is
no big scientific conspiracy". Ray had not used the word conspiracy and He
called her on that also. I guess even anti-creationists can sink to level of
misrepresentation also.
All in all, It was a fun hour. I wish I had recorded it.
Ray, you did a fine job of representing your position. Eugenie said, I
think with some relief, several times that She and You would agree on a lot
of things. I think that added to your credibility with the evolutionists.
glenn