Both sides of evolution debate come up short

Editor,

I'm not going to comment on the evolution-creationism debate too much. I would rather comment on the atmosphere of the two presentations by Phillip Johnson and Dave Thomas.

While I found Johnson's presentation to be relatively antiquated - anyone who understands this tired debate knows the evidence to refute many of Johnson's ideas - the room really heated up during a lengthy question-and-answer period.

Probably four-fifths of the questions challenged Johnson's talk, but a handful consisted of comments in support of either Johnson's efforts or the validity of his ideas. That's fine.

However, did anyone else notice that these kinds of remarks were always followed by an uproar of applause and cheers? The only response that the antagonistic questions received was an occasional quiet jeer drifting across the room. It was more a creationist pep rally than an intellectual discussion, in my opinion.

Do creationists just want to pat each other on the back, or do they want to actually have a debate here? Which is it?

Now, lest you think I am wholly prejudiced, allow me to convey my dismay at Thomas' talk. While he clearly had his scientific ducks in a row, he was a mediocre public speaker, at best. What a stereotype. Why do debates like this always have some evangelical-sounding, overly charismatic, compassionate grandfather on the creationists' side and a dorky scientist on the evolution side?

Some scientists can spin truly magnificent presentations and author equally excellent books. Why don't we get them whenever a good rousing evolution-creationism debate is on the table? I would love to sit in a coffee shop with Thomas and discuss science, but why is he our first choice for public spokesman?

I can't say I was overwhelmed by either of these talks. Perhaps Johnson's intelligent designer will grant me the ability to appreciate such debates better in the future.

Keith Wiley

computer science

graduate student