In the September 29th issue of the Daily Toreador, an article discussing issues regarding the teaching of
Intelligent Design was presented. Two biology professors were quoted with statements that implied that it was
foolish to even consider that life could have come about through processes other than known physical forces. It
is the intellectual closed mindedness that pervades the evolutionary community and is appalling that it can be
found so readily at TTU. If these individuals were to be intellectually honest, they would have admitted that even
though there are hundreds of thousands of articles that show that genetic mutations and rearrangements lead
to changes in organisms, not a single one has shown, scientifically, that evolution’s “first” cell from which all life
descended could come about through self-assembly, mutation, reproduction, and natural selection. If
experiments have already proved this, than why would Harvard announce in August that they were embarking
on a research effort to explain how life came about? Harvard biochemist David Liu who is involved in the effort
was quoted as saying that “my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical
events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.” I thought biologist already knew this and taught
it across the world?
Instead of labeling people as ignorant that don’t accept unsubstantiated evolutionary theories, maybe more time
could be spent explaining why the fossil record is devoid of the millions upon millions of transitional organisms
that would be necessary to show a progression from one species to another. Are we supposed to accept their
previous existence on faith since they apparently didn’t do us the favor of dying during favorable fossil making
conditions? It would also be nice to have a scientific explanation of the Cambrian explosion, wherein huge
numbers of animal, insect, and plant species appear suddenly in the strata with no known “close” ancestors. It
can now be calculated at what staggering rate new genetic information would have to have been accumulated
to make the emergence of these species possible. Steven Meyer, writing in the PROCEEDINGS OF THE
BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON [117(2):213-239. 2004], explains in his article entitled The origin of
biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, why this is such a problem for current evolutionary
theory. In addition to the gaping holes in evolutionary theory suggested above, maybe someone could explain
how the evolutionary tree was constructed so many decades ago without knowing what the DNA sequences
were for organisms and how gender came about.
If evolution is a viable theory, it should be able to weather intelligent debate from those that don’t accept
evolutionary interpretations of data. Refusing debate is a sign that evolution is merely a philosophical position
more akin to a religious faith. If one doesn’t understand how it might be possible to subject a system to a
scientific test to determine if it was designed, then one probably shouldn’t dismiss this analysis technique out of

Tim Dallas, PhD
Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
President, Christian Faculty and Staff Association