# Paul Nelson/Michael Ruse Debate



## sastark (Oct 5, 2007)

I attended a debate last night between Paul Nelson and Michael Ruse at Biola. The topic was "What would it take for a Darwinist to change his mind?". Below are my notes from the debate, if anyone is interested:

Michael Ruse, Atheist/Darwinist (Professor at Florida State University)
Paul Nelson, Intelligent Design Theoriest (Professor at Biola's M.A. in Science and Religion)
John Bloom, Moderator (Chair of the M.A. in Science and Religion program at Biola)

Format was: Each side would be given 40 minutes to speak followed by a 5 minute reply from the opponent. Then, questions from the audience.

Paul Nelson went first. His topic was: "What would change my mind about Darwinian evolution?"
Three big areas of his disagreement:

The origin of functional biomolecules
The origin of novel body parts
The nature of scientific explanation

His strongest point was during #3: That Darwin changed the rules of scientific investigation. Prior to Darwin, scientists were free to use all tools available to them to explain phenomena. He broke these into two categories: Natural causes and Intelligent causes. Darwin said you could only use natural causes. Nelson's point was that science should be free to investigate Intelligent causes.

He also spoke of the "Dialectic Model", which he explained as:

Learn from and work closesly with those who disagree with you
We have nothing to fear from the evidence.

Next, Dr. Ruse presented. His topic was "What would it take to turn me from Darwinism to Intelligent Design Theory?"

In his opening, he stated "Why would I want to become an Intelligent Design theorist?" which I found to be very telling. He continued with what he felt was an honest definition of Intelligent Design (Dr. Nelson did not object to his definition, I do believe Dr. Ruse was being honest).
What is ID Theory?
Irreducible Complexity
Must infer an intelligent Designer​Example used throughout: Bacterial Phlegellum (from Behe's _Darwin's Black Box_)​But is the complexity irreducible?
Irreducible does not equal unexplainable without a desginer​Irreducible does not equal unexplainable by Naturalism​The problem is that so many things seem impossible only later to be explained scientifically.

First thing Dr. Ruse would need is: A better explanation of Irreducible Complexity. You have to convince him that the complexity is irreducible.

If he were convinced that there was, in fact, an Intelligent Desginer, he sees two options: The Designer is either natural (aliens) or super-natural. Of course, the designer must be super-natural. 

So, you then have two options concerning a super-natural Desginer. Either, you hold to a literal 6-day creation or a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. In either case, one must ansewr the question "Why would God create after He rested on the seventh day?" ID postulates a constant creation (every phlegellum). Ruse stated that the only miracles are to do with human destiny and ultimately salvation.

Second, you must reconcile ID with Biblical Theology.

Non-Literalist Interpretation of Creation account:
God is prepared to create naturally, why doesn't he do all of his work this way?

Third, the Theodicy problem: The problem of evil. Why does an all-loving, all-powerful God allow evil? (Note: not a problem for the calvinist)

Referred to God as the "divine repairman".
(See Romans 8:20)

---------------------------------------------------
Response from Dr. Nelson:
Evolution uses theology to attack Christianity. Dr. Ruse posited theological questions, not scientific. Doesn't darwinism teach that science and religion are to be kept apart?

Response from Dr. Ruse:
Evangelicals' problems with evolution are moral/theological
ID is a response to evolution being sold to evangelicals who are all jumping on the bandwagon
Evangelicals' ought to closely examine ID before endorsing it.
-----------------------------------------------------
The floor was then opened to the audience for questions. There were several hundred people in attendance and some good questions were asked. However, the best "question" from the audience was given by Dr. Dwayne Gish who was in attendance. Dr. Ruse, before giving his 40 minute statement acknowledged the presence of Dr. Gish and stated that Dr. Ruse believed Dr. Gish had served his Lord well.

Dr. Gish made the following points: 

Ruse himself has said that evolution is a religion
Ruse side-stepped scientific attacks because evolution is scientifically bankrupt.
Evil in the world is a result of sin.
---------------------------------------------------------

Overall, I must say, I believe Dr. Ruse won the debate with Dr. Nelson; however, the evening belonged to Dr. Gish, who in less than five minutes destroyed all the arguments of Dr. Ruse.


----------

