A Reader Requests a Debate Between Proponents of Creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Science.
A reader wants to see a debate between Michael Behe, represinting intelligent design, Francis Collins representing theistic evolution, and someone yet unnamed representing "materialist naturalism", aka science.
An email came in from a reader last week suggesting the Inquirer sponsor a multi-sided debate about different ways to view evolution. He's identified some of the best known scientists behind various levels of creationism and "theistic" approaches. But who will represent what this reader calls "materialistic naturalism" and I call science? Any volunteers?
Faye: It seems to me based on the comments which followed that your column on Science, Faith, and life's origin had considerable interest from many viewpoints. There are essentially four major worldviews on your topic and these are: (1) pure atheistic materialism – no God; matter and energy are the only realities; (2) theistic evolution which has God merely starting things off by endowing nature with the capacity to self-organize, so don't look for intelligent design; (3) intelligent design explanations of life where needed (4) creationists who do practice and accept science but simultaneously believe that God created and now sustains all things. Now what do you think about this idea. Could the Inquirer consider sponsoring a debate between a prominent representative from each of these four groups? I believe I could interest an ID person and someone of considerable accomplishment from creation science to participate. Theistic evolutionists include Francis Collins of BioLogos and John Haught of Georgetown (or GWU). ID people include Dr. Michael Behe (The Edge of Evolution) just up the road at Lehigh U. I'm sure there is at least one pure materialist at U Penn or Drexel who would participate. This could happen sometime next spring and would require at least ½ a day. I would give each person 20-30 minutes to summarize their position, then give each speaker a chance to ask 1 question of any other speaker (2-3 questions depending on time allowed).
The way things are now, only atheistic materialism is allowed in public education and theistic evolutionists must act as if they were atheists or they don't get heard. Education involves hearing all sides of issues -- not shutting out certain lines of thought because it is not 100% materialistic naturalism. Something for you to think about. Ted Siek
It's an intriguing suggestion. But remember, in this country the law prohibits public schools from endorsing any particular religious ideology. This is why teaching materials promoting theistic viewpoints, such as "Intelligent Design Theory," tend to get shot down in court, as happened in Dover, PA in 2005.
In this column from last spring, Judge John E. Jones explains the reasoning behind his decision to keep Intelligent Design out of Dover science classes.