What Is At Stake in the Evolution-Intelligent Design Debate?
Last fall, when students in Aana Marie Vigen’s introductory theology course raised spontaneous questions about intelligent design and evolution, she recognized the opportunity for a wider, multidisciplinary discussion of these issues. So, in the spirit of Loyola’s commitment to educating students to become informed and active citizens, the assistant professor of ethics convened “What’s at Stake in the Evolution-Intelligent Design Debate?,” a spring panel discussion that attracted a standing-room audience.
The event was not a debate on the various merits and weaknesses of intelligent design and evolution, but instead a presentation of various perspectives from the fields of anthropology, biology, philosophy and theology. Participants’ presentations were excerpted in the summer 2006 issue of Loyola magazine; following are each of the presentations in full.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
Aana Marie Vigen, Ph.D.
Assistant professor, theology
Welcome! I am Aana Marie Vigen—the instigator of this event and assistant professor of ethics in the theology department. I am delighted each of you is here. Quite simply, the inspiration that set the planning in motion is you—the students of Loyola University Chicago. Las fall [September 2005], students, with various majors, pre-med, biology, chemistry, Spanish, Theology, Philosophy, Psychology, etc., raised spontaneous questions about intelligent design and evolution in my intro course with questions such as these: “Why are people on both sides of the debate up in arms?” “What’s the big deal? “Why shouldn’t intelligent design be taught along side evolution in a science course?” “Why not teach the controversy?” “Wouldn’t doing so enrich the class?” One student commented that evolution is “just a theory after all.” Another remarked that she had attended a Catholic high school were evolutionary theory was not welcome in any class anywhere in the school. Other students commented that they saw no place for intelligent design in any science course. And while it was not overtly articulated in my classes, I could not help but wonder if some students think that they--that you—have to choose between evolutionary theory and your religious faith. Can a pre-med or philosophy or theology student be both a person of sincere faith and also accept evolutionary science as true?
Then came the December 2005 decision by the federal judge in Dover, PA, ruling that teaching intelligent design in public schools is unconstitutional. Last week [February 2006], the Ohio Board of Education voted to toss out a mandate that 10th grade biology classes include “critical analysis of evolution.” What do we make of these recent decisions? Are they censorship or do they represent the protection of good scientific theory, curricula and practice?
In short, student questions along with subsequent events really got me thinking. I quickly realized that student questions and ideas merited a fuller discussion than I could create by myself or on the spot. So, I did what every shrewd teacher does: I went looking for help. And I found it in wonderful colleagues from varied fields and programs. This forum is truly a result of sincere and committed collaboration by professors, staff, and students in Biology, Theology, Anthropology, Philosophy, Natural Sciences, Environmental Studies, the Bioethics Minor, Loyola’s chapters of Beta Beta Beta, American Medical Student Association, and the Minority Association of Pre-Health Students. Thank you so much for supporting this event, for lending your expertise and perspectives, and for helping spread the word and encourage attendance. I want to especially recognize and thank the Division for Mission and Ministry—Lucien Roy and Joe Canino, Joe Early and The Center for the Catholic Intellectual Heritage—Adriaan Peperzak—because they contributed the financial assistance to produce and distribute the flyers and to supply the luscious food and drink to follow.
Finally, I want to thank these four panelists: Each is taking a risk by being here— They are putting their concerns and minds out there for you all to assess and question. In fact, good interdisciplinary dialogue is always a risk: It makes you move from the safety of familiar terms and assumptions to engage different languages, methods, and views. Genuine dialogue means that each participant is open to being informed by others even when it is hard to find a common language.
Luckily, we here at Loyola have discovered a kind of a shared language in a common mission: To educate you—our students—to the very best of ability. And so we work hard to model authentic dialogue across our disciplines and differences. In my short time here, I have discovered that we really mean it—we genuinely want to give students the best education we can and to help you thoughtfully address the pressing issues of our times.
Today, we will just begin to address one public debate that has caught a lot of attention lately. It is my hope that the information and views presented today are thought-provoking and illuminative so that when any of you next discuss intelligent design and evolution, whether it is with a teacher, colleague, neighbor, co-worker, friend, family member or stranger, that you will be an articulate and constructive dialogue partner.
Why does this matter so much to me? Because democracy depends on such informed and active participation. Each of you can have a significant role in determining what is taught in the future and where it is taught. Your voice matters. And it will be taken more seriously if you make the effort to understand the complexity and stakes of contemporary social issues and to weigh in on them with thoughtfulness, conviction, humility, and openness to learning from others. This panel and dialogue is only a beginning. The conversation needs to continue in your classes, around your dinner tables, in your faith communities, with your families, and in our democratic society.
Okay, the ground rules: The panelists have asked me to keep time and to cut them off if they exceed 14 minutes so as to allow for enough time for discussion. I will give them 60 seconds of a grace period. Following the four presentations, I will moderate the dialogue. Since this event has students in mind, you will be given first priority in asking questions. Of course, faculty and staff are invited to add their comments and questions once the dialogue gets going.
Now, allow me to introduce the 4 panelists in the order in which they will speak:
Panelist 1: Paul Mueller, S.J.
(click here for presentation)
Paul Mueller is an assistant professor of philosophy and is also a Jesuit priest. He holds graduate degrees in philosophy, theology, and physics. His particular teaching and research interests include seventeenth-century philosophy, the history and philosophy of physics, and the relationships between science and religion.
Panelist 2: Howard Laten, Ph.D.
(click here for presentation)
Howard Laten is a professor of Biology and is also the bioinformatics program director. He joined the Loyola faculty in 1980 and teaches Genetics, Molecular Genetics, and other advanced courses in the biology curriculum. He has also participated frequently in programs for secondary education science teachers. His research involves assessing the function and evolutionary history of highly successful genetic parasites called retrotransposons and their infectious relatives, retroviruses.
Panelist 3: James Calcagno, Ph.D.
(click here for presentation)
James Calcagno is a biological anthropologist with research and teaching interests focusing on paleoanthropology, human evolution, primate behavior, sociobiology and conservation biology. He has conducted research in Denmark, England, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda, as well as here in Chicago.
Panelist 4: Pauline A. Viviano
(click here for presentation)
Pauline Viviano is an associate professor of theology who is celebrating her 25th year here at LUC. Her degree is in biblical languages and literature, but her specialization has been Hebrew scriptures. She has written on the book of Genesis and is now working on a literary analysis of the book of Jeremiah. She continues to be interested in creation mythology, especially the stories of creation in Genesis.