The fans in the crowd nodded approvingly, but opponents glared a critical eye toward Dr. Tom Woodward as the guest speaker professed about the supposed scientific evidence for intelligent design theory.

Syracuse University professor emeritus Bryce Hand scribbled notes as Woodward spoke at two functions yesterday. The first was a noon luncheon in the Hendricks Chapel Noble Room, where Woodward spoke about intelligent design versus evolution. Later last night, at 8 p.m. in Grant Auditorium, Woodward presented more of the same, outlining scientific evidence for intelligent design. Both events were presented by Campus Crusade for Christ.

‘What I’m mostly concerned with,’ Woodward said, ‘is why there are credible scientists sticking their necks out and suggesting that the evidence doesn’t point to evolution.’

Woodward rehashed many old arguments for intelligent design, the theory that suggests modern life is the result of an intelligent designer, not evolution of species. One main point was that life was too complex to exist without an original creator.

The scientific community has overwhelmingly embraced evolution, first presented by Charles Darwin, as the explanation of the origin of species. It states that all life descended from common ancestry.

Evolution has many subsections. One of which is natural selection, which states that species with advantageous characteristics thrive and sometimes change genes. It’s one part of evolution Woodward conceded.

‘Natural selection is reality,’ Woodward said during the presentation. ‘Natural selection exists. But we believe that natural selection explains the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.’

Hand, who recently retired after spending 30 years as a professor of geology at SU, contested that point.

After the show, Hand, one of the few on-lookers who withheld applause, approached and challenged Woodward.

Hand, who first met Woodward in 1999 after a speech at SU, asked Woodward to explain how whales and life-dwelling mammals have so much common ancestry.

‘I think there are two possible explanations for that,’ Woodward said. ‘One is that the God I’ve come to believe in fed new information in on the way.’

‘So God wanted to make us think evolution occurred before we discovered it?’ Hand asked.

‘No, that’s not what I’m saying,’ Woodward said. ‘They were separate species. When you find someone who believes in the tree of evolution, they’re going to interpret things to fit that model. Scientific evidence can be inferred from a bunch of different ways.’

Woodward and Hand continued their back-and-forth dialogue, reaching no consensus.

‘I have another question,’ Hand continued. ‘If it’s really true that science draws you, favors, points toward God, then one would predict that the more science one knows, the more religious one would be, right?’

‘I wouldn’t make that assumption,’ Woodward said. ‘Until recently, for the last 100 years, not one scientist has been a creationist in the United States. They reject it before they give it a try.’

The rope-a-dope continued. Eventually, they agreed they wouldn’t reach any conclusion.

But in a time when evolution is increasingly attacked, demonized and scaled back in public school education, Woodward’s presence reminded educators of the growing message of intelligent design.

A high school in Dover, Penn., recently introduced intelligent design into the curriculum. A judge recently ordered a school in Cobb County, Ga., to remove stickers in school books that said evolution was a theory and should be carefully considered.

Hand and SU geology professor Donald Siegel noticed it. Siegel jumped to the microphone as the Q & A session began. He first urged the audience to listen to the actual scientific explanation of the information Woodward presented.

Then he challenged Woodward.

‘I would argue that a large portion of creationists aren’t interested in science,’ Siegel said. ‘They’re interested in values. They think that without divine intervention, their life has no meaning … what do you think of that argument?’

‘I think that may apply to the rank-and-file people,’ Woodward said. ‘But the leading proponents of this, the major figures, they believe in it.’

Then Woodward mentioned scientists – Antony Flew, Marc Davis and Michael Denton, among others – many of whom were once ‘atheists,’ as Woodward contended, before realizing the scientific evidence in support of an intelligent designer.

Woodward, too, claimed atheism as an undergraduate at Princeton before finding scientific evidence for intelligent design.

To some, Woodward made his case for intelligent design rather convincingly by painting himself as a former atheist, quoting academics who favor intelligent design and accepting challenges from the audience impressed many in the crowd.

‘He was pretty much right on,’ said Dan Schfram, a junior electrical engineering major. ‘It was blowing me away. From my understanding, he was able to answer any questions with credible scientific evidence.’

Others were less impressed.

‘I have to be careful to avoid being rude,’ Hand said after the luncheon. ‘The fossil record and biology were so misrepresented, his whole presentation was flawed.’

Among things Hand found flaws in – when Woodward questioned the peppered moths example and the speaker’s suggestion that evolution is a ‘theory in crisis.’

‘Well, it isn’t a theory in crisis,’ Hand said. ‘It’s nothing close to that.

‘See, I’m a sucker for this thing. I can’t stand to see science misrepresented. I don’t think he’s doing it intentionally, but I can’t stand to see something as powerful and wonderful as science distorted.’

Unlike many in the intelligent design movement, Woodward cringed when presented with some recent achievements of the intelligent design movement – like the introduction of intelligent design in the curriculum in Dover, Penn.

‘They made a mistake,’ Woodward said. ‘They’re requiring I.D., not permitting it. They should protect the right of teachers. Teachers should be allowed, not required, to teach it. They should teach the controversy.’

And he condemned some shortfalls of the movement – like the judge’s decision in Cobb Country, Ga.

‘Stickers are appropriate and minimalistic,’ Woodward said. ‘The judge was crazy to throw it out.’

Overall, Woodward stuck strong to his anti-evolution beliefs.

‘We believe in the coming months,’ Woodward said, ‘the inability of nature to create new qualities of genetic information will become the leading i

Published on March 3, 2005 at 12:00 pm