Spring Break
Profs debate design theory
By: Ji Ma and Steve McReynolds
Issue date: 2/16/05 Section: News
Cassone said many of the parts that make up life, such as genes, are interchangeable, and many are duplicated within one organism. He drew a comparison between a Venus fly trap to a round-leafed sundew, both of which are carnivorous plants. Cassone pointed out many similarities between the two organisms, and said one may have evolved from the other.
Cassone also questioned the "intelligence" of intelligent design, and pointed out many parts of the human body are not very logical, such as the blind spot, the human knee and the necessity for Vitamin C.
Both professors stayed on the defensive position, with Behe arguing that the best scientists cannot formulate an explanation or model complex parts, while Cassone attacked Behe's definition of irreducible complexity.
Religion was not mentioned until the end of the debate.
"Science cannot deny the existence of a creator," Cassone said. "We cannot use science to affirm one."
Cassone said that a large portion of the intelligent design theory was muddled with religion and politics.
"I believe that science should be outside these realms, and that's why I came here tonight," he said, at which point he received a standing ovation from a portion of the audience.
Sophomore biochemistry major Ryan Baxter said that both sides of the controversial debate were presented well.
"For me it was interesting to leave all biases behind and go in with a free mind," he said.
Carlos Arredondo, a senior philosophy major, disagreed with Baxter, and said the professors were arguing about details.
"I think there are deeper issues," he said.
Matt Gamel, a graduate math student sided with Behe's theories, and was frustrated with Cassone's suggestion that religious people did not come to the debate to learn about science.
The debate was a part of the fifth annual Veritas Forum.
Cassone also questioned the "intelligence" of intelligent design, and pointed out many parts of the human body are not very logical, such as the blind spot, the human knee and the necessity for Vitamin C.
Both professors stayed on the defensive position, with Behe arguing that the best scientists cannot formulate an explanation or model complex parts, while Cassone attacked Behe's definition of irreducible complexity.
Religion was not mentioned until the end of the debate.
"Science cannot deny the existence of a creator," Cassone said. "We cannot use science to affirm one."
Cassone said that a large portion of the intelligent design theory was muddled with religion and politics.
"I believe that science should be outside these realms, and that's why I came here tonight," he said, at which point he received a standing ovation from a portion of the audience.
Sophomore biochemistry major Ryan Baxter said that both sides of the controversial debate were presented well.
"For me it was interesting to leave all biases behind and go in with a free mind," he said.
Carlos Arredondo, a senior philosophy major, disagreed with Baxter, and said the professors were arguing about details.
"I think there are deeper issues," he said.
Matt Gamel, a graduate math student sided with Behe's theories, and was frustrated with Cassone's suggestion that religious people did not come to the debate to learn about science.
The debate was a part of the fifth annual Veritas Forum.
Be sure to include your name, major, and class year. Submissions without this information are subject to deletion.
By submitting a comment, you agree to thebatt.com's Terms of Use.
You may also send a Mail Call to The Battalion at mailcall@thebatt.com