This interview with Ashby Camp was conducted in January 2004 by Tristan Abbey. Mr. Camp is a veteran of the origins controversy and contributor to the True.Origin Archive. Interview questions are in bold; responses are in standard text. The views expressed below do not necessarily reflect the views of IDURC.

1. The name Ashby Camp is probably unknown to many readers, but it seems clear you are quite active in the Intelligent Design debate. How did you get involved, and how are you involved now?

I have been interested in the creation-evolution issue since my conversion to Christianity in 1978. In the early 1990s, out of a desire to inoculate my daughter against the evolution propaganda flooding our society, I began collecting and organizing material that contradicts the notion that unintelligent processes are an adequate explanation for our existence. That led to the publication in 1994 of The Myth of Natural Origins. I have written several articles since then, usually in response to what I perceive to be inflated claims about common ancestry. (Though ID proper is compatible with universal common ancestry, criticisms of common ancestry overlap with ID to the extent that the common ancestry is alleged to be the product of unintelligent or seemingly unintelligent causes.)

My current involvement is to try to stay informed and to share with others resources I judge to be helpful. Toward that end, I participate on some private email lists and maintain (through the efforts of web master Tim Wallace) a categorized list of web articles of interest to creationists at http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp.

2. How would you respond to those who might suggest your background in the law makes you inadequate to debate the science behind evolution and ID?

I would ask that my efforts be judged on their merits. Knowledge is not restricted to what one learns in pursuit of a formal degree. Moreover, I think the practice of law sharpens one's ability to identify the issues of a debate, to assess the relevance of evidence, and to apply reason in reaching conclusions. Being outside of the scientific establishment also may provide a perspective and freedom that lessens the disadvantage of a nonformal education.

3. You have had some experience sparring with Talk Origins in the past. Do you have any advice for those new to ID that perhaps may feel intimidated by the Talk Origins Archive?

I wrote an article in response to an article in the T.O. archive, but as best I recall, I have not participated in debates on the list. Frankly, I find exchanges with diehard evolutionists generally to be unpleasant, time consuming, and unproductive. This is not to say there is no value in them; it's simply to say that each person must decide how he or she can best use the limited time available.

For those who choose to post on T.O., my advice would be: (1) take care that your fact assertions are correct, (2) check the logic of the argument you make from those facts, (3) be courteous to everyone (this should go without saying for those who wear the name of Jesus), (4) don't feel that you must have an answer for everything (no one does), (5) be willing to admit when you have erred, (6) be willing to exit a discussion when you no longer have the time or desire to participate, and (7) check on occasion with seasoned posters of like perspective about the wisdom of a contemplated post.

4. You're perhaps most well-known for your work in phylogenetics. Can you briefly describe what a phylogeny is, and what role phylogenetics plays in the debate?

A phylogeny is the presumed evolutionary history (genealogy) of an organism or group of organisms. Its relevance to ID, as I see it, is that Darwinian evolutionary histories, which assume exclusively unintelligent causes, often bridge gaps that experience suggests could be bridged only by the involvement of an intelligence (the bacterial flagellum being one popular example). These gaps are bridged without any detailed explanation of how competitiveness or viability could be maintained while structure, organ, or system "A" is transformed incrementally by unguided processes into the radically different structure, organ, or system "B."

In terms of the broader creation-evolution debate, many evolutionary histories contradict the biblical testimony that various kinds of plants and animals were created separately and miraculously by God. (I realize that some of your readers may give no weight to Scripture and that some who regard Scripture as the word of God may not share my understanding of the creation texts. Those interested in the basis of my understanding can read http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/viewcreation.pdf.)

5. Some evolutionists contend that a "nested hierarchy" is powerful evidence of evolution. Could you explain what this means and whether or not it is accurate?

"Nested hierarchy" refers to the fact organisms are grouped by similarities into successively larger groups -- extremely similar individuals being grouped into species, similar species being grouped into genera, genera into families, families into orders, and so on up to kingdoms. The evolutionary explanation of this pattern is that the similarities that distinguish the groups are the result of branching events in the descent from a common ancestor.

Many evolutionists claim that nested hierarchy fulfills a falsifiable prediction of evolutionary theory and thus constitutes strong evidence in support of it, but this ignores the plasticity of the theory. Evolutionary theory has in its explanatory toolbox various processes, such as transposition (lateral transfer) and convergence, that work against a hierarchical pattern. These could be invoked as needed to explain a nonhierarchical pattern. As Walter ReMine has written:

"The pattern of descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost. Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern. Descendants could be totally different from their distant ancestors and sister groups, with little or no semblance of nested similarities linking them." (ReMine, The Biotic Message, 343.)

"Evolution does not predict a hierarchical pattern. Simple processes of loss, replacement, anagenesis, transposition, unmasking, or multiple biogenesis would prohibit such a pattern. Since hierarchical patterns (such as cladograms or phenograms) are not predicted by evolution they are not evidence for evolution." (ReMine, The Biotic Message, 444.)

It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness. It also may be, as ReMine has suggested, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology. (See, e.g., ReMine, The Biotic Message, 367-368, 465-467.) The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution.

6. What are your thoughts of recent efforts by the Discovery Institute and others to teach criticism of evolution (and perhaps Intelligent Design) in the science classroom?

I think it is appalling for evolutionary theory to be insulated from scientific criticism in public schools by the charge that the criticism is religiously motivated and thus barred by the separation of church and state. Students are being indoctrinated rather than educated. So I applaud the Discovery Institute's efforts to remedy that situation.

As for teaching ID, I think students at least should be informed that some scientists and philosophers believe that design detection is a valid scientific enterprise and that it can be applied to biology as well as to radio waves (as in SETI) and inanimate objects (as in archeology and paleoanthropology). That is something an educated person should know. The establishment wants to avoid even that minimal disclosure because it does not want to face the questions that inevitably would ensue.

7. What do you see as the most powerful evidence for Intelligent Design?

In my opinion, the most powerful scientific evidence for intelligent design is the mind-boggling, integrated complexity that exists at every level of life. Where the cause of such complexity is known, it is invariably an intelligent being.