To the Editor:
I would like to respond to Intelligent Design editorial written by Luke Deming in the Nov. 24 issue of the Vanguard. Mr. Deming makes some interesting but very uniformed statements in his editorial. Teaching Intelligent Design may be an alternative idea of describing how life started and continues today but it is not science and has no place being taught as such.
Evolution is a scientific theory that not only unifies the themes of biology but is also based on sound science from biology and other scientific fields such as geology and physics. This theory has been upheld in study after study despite intense scientific scrutiny. Most conflicts that do arise in the scientific community occur over specific processes that occur in evolution, but not in the theory of evolution itself.
What I think is most interesting is the lack of understanding that many people have about how science works. Mr. Deming points this out while trying to make his point about offering alternative views in science classes. Science is not a democratic process; we don’t vote on the “best” theory. Instead, we formulate one or more reasonable guesses (or hypotheses), test them and see which hypothesis is supported by the data. If a hypothesis is supported by enough evidence, that hypothesis can become a theory. There have never, ever, been any data generated to suggest that Intelligent Design is a valid hypothesis let alone a scientific theory. This is why it is not taught in science classes.
Aron Drake
Lecturer of Biology
SVSU Faculty
1 comment:
Science is not a democratic process; we don’t vote on the “best” theory.
Bullshit.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/guest-post-rick-ryals-the-anthropic-principle/
Etceteras
Your statement is a lot like saying that Republicans don't typically deny global warming because they don't get together and vote on it.
The rest of what you said is okay, but IDists would strongly disagree with your assertion that "there have never, ever, been any data generated to suggest that Intelligent Design is a valid hypothesis let alone a scientific theory".
And it would be very easy to show in court that scientists dishonestly "conspire" against their belief that they have evidence for an ID:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
Politics as usual... but your high-horse just broke a leg.
Maybe I should rebut your OP-ED?
As things stand now we will be in a very awkward position [if his unobservable multiverse hypothesis turns out to be the bogus hype of over extended string theorists]. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.
-Leonard Susskind, strong atheist physicist and "the father of string theory" being interviewed by Amanda Gefter.
Yep, it wouldn't be hard at all to put many reputable scientists on the witness stand and force them to make a case for ID.
Let the denial begin...
Post a Comment