RSS 2.0 Follow Us!

Related Posts

Another NKU Story of Interest

Scott on April 21, 2006 at 10:41 am

As I read The Northerner Online to catch their take on Professor Jacobsen and her roving band of pro-abortion vandals, another campus story caught my eye.

Titled Biology Profs: Intelligent Design is NOT Science, the article outlines the concerns of various NKU Biology professors including Professor Miriam Kannan. Kannan said that she’s had three students drop her classes “because they couldn’t handle learning about evolution because it conflicted with their religious views.” According to Professor Kannan:

“I told them that science is not a matter of belief…Scientists consider facts and the facts support evolution.”

Debra Pearce, the Chair of the NKU Department of Biological Sciences, added:

“There is absolutely no place for religion in biology…Although intelligent design is inappropriate in science classes, that’s not to say it wouldn’t be appropriate to teach it in other classes, like religion.”

The article also quotes Richard Durtsche, an assistant professor of biology at NKU and a Christian Church of Disciples of Christ minister, who says that he doesn’t have a problem teaching evolution. According to Professor Durtsche:

“The belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive…God uses evolution as a part of his plan.”

Though many would take issue with Professor Durtsche about God and evolution, I do not. At this point, I am comfortable in saying that I don’t know. I believe it is possible that God used evolution, or ex nihilo creation, or a combination of the two. I think that Intelligent Design and Evolution both leave gaps and unanswered questions that must be addressed through deductive reason, logic, and even speculation.

However, what does BUG me is the attitude of Professors Kannan and Pearce. Why is it so difficult for them to acknowledge that the THEORY of evolution DOESN’T answer all the questions and leaves A LOT of holes? They become so threatened and dogmatic about their evolution-based system of beliefs that they seem to be unable to look at their field of study dispationately.

Kannan says that “Science is not a matter of belief…” Sure it is Professor Kannan. You base your evolutionary perspective on a series of assumptions and postulations that you believe because they fit into what you want to be true about the discipline of Biology. You WANT to BELIEVE that simple, single-celled organisms developed into more and more complex organisms, even though you can’t prove it and have no solid, credible evidence to substantiate your BELIEF. You don’t address where the “simple” single-cell organisms came from except to say that they came about through the interactions of protiens and enzymes in the proverbial primordial soup of ancient Earth. You can’t explain the leaps in development that would be necessary to take a single-cell to a multi-cell, and a multi-cell to a multi-system organism.

Kannan then goes on to say, “Scientists consider facts and the facts support evolution.” They do, Professor? The FACTS support evolution? Or is it the interpretation of data including the selective inclusion of some pieces and exclusion of other pieces that “support” evolution? If evolution was a FACT, professor, wouldn’t it then become the LAW of Evolution (As in the Laws of Thermodynamics, Gravity, Motion, etc…which are not called theories, but are called laws for a reason…they can be proven and substantiated and duplicated and challenged and defended).

Professor Pearce’s statement that “There is absolutely no place for religion in biology…” demonstrates how slanted her perspective is. In the Intelligent Design -vs- Evolution debate, nobody on the I.D. side (at least to my knowledge) has brought up religion as being an essential component. Religion is the theological/philosophical framework that is created when an individual or group attempts to approach the god or gods that they believe in. How they approach their god or gods involves ritual, a system of beliefs, a moral and spiritual paradigm of some kind, etc. This becomes “religion.”

Intelligent Design does not advocate any sort of religious tradition or framework of beliefs. I.D. simply points to the Prime Cause, the Bringer of the Bang, the Instigator of Evolution, the Clock Maker, etc. Any additional conclusions reached after addressing the initial proof of spontaneous, directed creation is up to the individual.

Post to Twitter

Category: Religion & Faith, Science & Tech |

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.