Another View From The Spectator Seats

By Dave Snyder

Ron, I have mixed emotions about the event.  I think the school board accomplished what they were after, information to help them decide whether the ID premise is worthy of placement into the standards.  The crowd was mostly well behaved as were the participants. The information was pretty good, although I believe our side could have been much stronger in developing the idea of what science is and whether modern Darwinian evolution was now living or dying by those standards of empirical scientific inquiry-- since the naturalist panelists were implying it the history of evolutionary research had been glowingly successful,---- citing the mountains of published material on the subject compared to the mole hill of published data on ID.  I don't think our side clearly made the case that ID analysis of evolutionary research to date does not seek to offer any explanations -- it just wants to have the freedom to be an option to the closed paradigm of naturalism.

I was disappointed by Krauss -- I expected much more cogent explanations from him.  But then again, I guess he is a theoretical physicist.  There were times I thought he was embarrasing himself with some lame pronouncements. His less than subtle attacks on the credibility of the ID defenders and failure to give empirical or logical reasons why evolution deserves to be the only state sponsored paradigm for origins science was a glaring weakness.  I was impressed with Millers style and his ability to communicate.  I would say he is the best spokesman for their side I have ever heard.  I think he communicated well to the average person. His arguments were mainly wrong, but he made them sound plausible to the audience.  He and Krauss clearly (and probably successfully) made the case that the long and 'distingushed' history of evolutionary research -- though still unsuccessful at giving any conclusive answers for origins, life, and the mechanism(s) in nature required by Darwininsim, that would result in life and all it's diversity and complexity---(which Miller and Krauss finally conceded at the end)-----that research continues and is on track to one day supply most of the desired answers.   They made it clear that not only was ID an unnecessary detour into religious considerations, but that ID could not supply anything more scientificly needful for consideration than what is currently in place.  They made it abundantly clear-- to their key audience, the Board, that the scientific establishment will revile them and marginalize Ohio (along with the ID movement)  if they continue to pursue this course.

I don't think Dr. Wells showed much energy or passion. I heard him in Kansas City last summer and he dismembered modern evolutionary claims.  I understand he needed to be restrained in this context but I thought he seemed too restrained or had a bad case of jet lag. Later Monday night at Ohio State in front of almost 300 students (few faculty) he was was in good form.

I was impressed with Dr. Meyer.  He came very close to exposing evolution's true critical problems -- and explaining that it was only reasonable to allow openess in the standards for views that do not conveniently fit the naturalism paradigm.  But in the end- I doubt the board will pioneer any manner of compromise as he suggested.  Rather I think they will have wording that will leave the evolutionary paradigm comfortably in place allowing no rivals, except with a soft reference to enhancing students critical thinking skills through providing open discussion  and free criticism and questions from students regarding  all theories --something that is generally already the case. 

I hope I am wrong, but I don't think it looks good for the science standards to be markedly changed for openess to any competing theories to the monolithoic status quo of evolutionism.      I have no idea what the State legislature will do.

Dave