Intelligent design should be taught as part of a "comparative
religions" class, but certainly not in any science class.
Intelligent design reminds me of a "Far Side" cartoon that shows a lab
coat-wearing scientist working out a long, complicated mathematical proof
on the chalkboard, in the middle of which "and then a miracle occurs"
appears, and his colleagues point to it and say "I believe you've got a
problem here, Smithers".
Randy Nevin Sammamish
The Discovery Institute argues that schools should "teach the
controversy" about evolution versus intelligent design. But what class
should it be taught in? Intelligent design is not science. It is
untestable by scientific means, and has provided no insights into the
complexity and wonder of life.
There is no scientific controversy, but rather a clash of political
philosophies and religious beliefs. Teach it in a history or political
science class, as a short postscript to the 1925 "monkey trial" of John
Scopes, who was charged in Tennesee with the crime of teaching evolution.
Students can learn more from William Jennings Bryan, Clarence Darrow
and H. L. Mencken than they can from the Discovery Institute's slick,
unscientific pitch.
Ed Munoz Seattle
Intelligent design should not be part of science education.
ID is simply creationist pseudoscience.
ID is anti-intellectual and harmful.
It misleads students and "turns them off" about science. ID attempts to
discredit and ridicule even the methods that confirm the factual evidence
of evolution.
ID does not follow the scientific method for acquiring and confirming
new knowledge based upon physical evidence.
Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose
explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions
from these theories are tested by reproducible experiments. ID fails to
meet these stringent criteria.
ID proponents obfuscate their religious motivations and use deliberate
deception for financial or political benefit.
They dishonestly portray evolutionary theory as "controversial" and "in
crisis," yet there is no scientific controversy to teach.
Teaching an ID curriculum clearly violates the separation of church and
state.
Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute admits that his strategy
is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic. ID subtly
seeks to shift the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence
of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there, ID proponents proselytize
Christianity, "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and
finally "introduction" to Jesus.
Larry Happ Redmond
The answer to the question of whether or not intelligent design should
be part of science education is clearly and definitively no. By
coincidence, two most cogent essays in support of this conclusion were
elegantly presented in the Op-Ed pages of The Seattle Times and The New
York Times on the same day as your "Burning Question" was posted (Aug.
28).
Colin Mosely, in "Rising to the Challenge of WASL" (Seattle Times),
points out that a solid grasp of math, science and engineering are
absolutely necessary for graduates of our schools today to thrive in our
current and future economy. Parenthetically, Mosely argues that our
schools should really strive to exceed the WASL standards, and that this
challenge is definitely achievable. Implicit in his thesis is that it is
essential that our schools teach sound science principles. We should not
offer astrology as a viable "alternative explanation" to astronomy, nor
should we teach alchemy as a viable "alternative explanation" to
modern-day chemistry. Likewise, intelligent design is not science and must
not be offered as a "scientific" alternative to evolution. Astrology,
alchemy, and intelligent design could conceivably be studied in
comparative philosophy courses, but not in science courses.
Daniel C. Dennett (New York Times) lucidly describes the deceptive
arguments of those who espouse intelligent design. As he writes, "Indeed,
no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival
explanation of any biological phenomenon." If those who support
intelligent design fail to even attempt to adhere to scientific
principles, there is no rationale for talking about intelligent design
within a science curriculum.
I commend both of these essays.
Donald W. Mitchell Seattle
Should existentialism be taught as science in elementary school? No.
Should existentialism be taught as philosophy in high school or college as
a way of thought in balance and context with other sound approaches? Yes.
There is a place for mature material. But you give milk before meat.
What should ID be taught as? It should not be taught as science. It is
more appropriate as religion or philosophy.
That said, the idea of ID has broad intuitive appeal to the human mind.
An examination of the creation myth across world cultures will show this
common thread. Indeed the very fabric of Western philosophy and thought is
centered on the assumed existence of, and quest for, absolute scientific
truth. Does this not make ID an article of faith? The proponents of ID
should quit while they are ahead! The teaching of the very act of human
creativity across all the arts and sciences already drives home this
principle as a metaphor far better than any explicit instruction.
Loosely speaking, science is that which can be proven using our
physical senses, or tools using physical principles, or can be derived
from rigorous application of logic. Principles taught as science should be
widely considered to be truth by a broad constituency. They should stand
the test of time and peer review. Religion on the other hand is based on
faith. By faith, I mean an internal conviction that something is true,
even though it cannot be proven using the scientific system of the day. It
is by religion that we connect with a higher power and are able to discern
higher spiritual truths.
ID should not be used to impose the values of a particular group on the
teachings of the community. There are many of us who value an active
spiritual belief along with the principles of science. They are really two
sides of the same thing. However the place to instill spiritual belief is
in the home, family and church community. The secular public education
system should not be used as a bully pulpit for those who do not share
these values.
Further, spiritual beliefs cannot be instilled by force from the
outside. They must be incorporated by the individual according to an
overall way of thinking. The understanding of ID is not an end in itself
that can be taught in isolation. ID is more of a perspective that can be
used to guide one's life. But it is a perspective that is only applicable
to one who has been taught to follow the path. Indeed, it is a testimony
that is gained by the individual through spiritual sight. Such a treasure
should not be given out lightly or for free. The individual must seek, in
order to find. We are told that we should not cast our pearls before
swine.
William Lees Redmond
I was stunned that the leaders of our country are proposing
"intelligent design" in the science program for children. It doesn't make
sense that we care so much about promoting "math and science" and then
turn around and add this biblical version. Isn't evolution connected to
science? And anthropology? Each "day" in the six-day creation in the Bible
represented millions of years. Also, if we allow religious groups to
tamper with education, we will eventually go back to the "dark ages" time
when religion had obscured knowledge and truth.
Eydie Eskridge Seattle
I see that the religious right wing is again trying to insert religion
in our children's and grandchildren's science classes.
Please don't be fooled. "Intelligent design" is just another phrase for
creationism. As such it has no place in the public classrooms!
Separation of church and state is still a part of our Constitution. It
should remain that way.
E. Wherry Shoreline
Unlike the years of scientific research upon which the facts of
evolution is based, the theory of intelligent design would impose a
deity-based belief on all school children without scientific evidence to
support it. No matter how many people agree with it, it is an obstruction
to freedom of thought as well as being unconstitutional to include it in
the public school science curricula. It makes a perfect example of why the
Constitution of the United States calls for separation of church and
state.
This religious person says to keep such theory where it belongs, where
believers accept it. Until there is scientific proof of the intelligent
design theory it does not serve all the children in our public schools
well.
There's no block to teaching it in houses of worship, or conducting
research for proof. It is "not ready for prime time."
Lyn Macfarlane Edmonds
The reason that it is irresponsible to include intelligent design as a
part of science education is included in Horsey's article with Chapman's
acknowledgement; "intelligent design is underdeveloped as a testable
scientific theory."
In addition, there is the more damming problem that no compelling
supportive secondary geophysical or biological evidence indicates that
this is a reasonable hypothesis. A detailed discussion of the issues is
not possible in a letter to the editor, but one must point out again that
the Darwin acknowledgement of evolutionary processes in biological systems
is supported by geophysical evidence and testing founded on the same
fundamental physics used by the engineering community to design and build
Boeing airplanes. Biological systems are after all physical systems. What
are the proposed necessary replacements for Newtonian mechanics, quantum
mechanics, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, relativity theory, and
gravitation from the proponents of intelligent design?
Should the religion and philosophical communities wish to speculate on
"what if," so be it. That is not science.
E.L. Roetman, Ph. D. Freeland
I went to the Discovery Institute Web site and read the extensive
amount of information on intelligent design theory. While I understand the
argument that evolution theory may not be robust enough to explain our
evolution starting with primordial ooze and ending with what we are today
I am not sure that the theory of intelligent design answers that question
either.
From Darwin's first publication in 1859 to the Scopes trial in 1925
there were years of study, argument, testing, etc. that occurred in
pursuit of supporting or dismissing Darwin's theory. Since the Scopes
trials even more data has been accumulated and tested in various ways
further cementing the theory of evolution as a viable truth.
Intelligent design has been around for all of a few years with
absolutely no testing, and no provable data to support its premise: That
we were created by some "intelligent designer." Why are people in a hurry
to install an unproven theory in the classroom? I can already see the
student-teacher exchange:
Teacher explains that some "greater being" could have created life on
Earth. Student raises hand and asks, "So does that mean that we could have
been created by aliens who arrived in a UFO?"
Teacher, "Yes."
Student, "Could there have been multiple entities that created
civilizations on different parts of our planet?"
Teacher, "Yes, that is possible."
Student, "So we have no idea, really, about what was the catalyst that
caused the initiation of life on Earth?"
Teacher: "Correct."
The idea of intelligent design raised some interesting questions. What
it doesn't do is provide any answers beyond, "gee, our existence could
pretty much be the result of anything, including evolution, aliens in
UFOs, God, or even multiple Gods."
To me, a good theory provides a specific framework that raises testable
questions that will support or debunk the theory. A good theory also
projects what the answers will be. If it is not testable and verifiable,
then you are not practicing science, you are participating in blind belief
-- something that would fall under the purview of religion. Intelligent
design fails as a theory on this front. Perhaps, after some testing, they
will have a theory worthy of teaching in the classroom, but good theories
usually take time to prove and justify.
Ernesto Simas Bellevue
I think that it's an unnecessary and time consuming exercise in
stupidity to teach Intelligent Design in science classes. With all the
studies that are necessary in schools these day why waste time on this
type of subject.
Dr. Robert P. Lewis Mercer Island
Schools "teaching" intelligent design is not the issue. There is
nothing to teach. In the pending "intelligent design" case in Dover, Pa.,
all eight science teachers at the area high school advised the school
board that "intelligent design is not science, not biology, not an
accepted scientific theory." They declined to preach to their students
about intelligent design. No government in this country prevents religious
conservatives from preaching their beliefs in their pulpits and church
classes. No government in this country should force teachers in public
schools to preach material that is based on religion and faith at taxpayer
expense. No child should be unwillingly subjected to preaching that is
based only on a religious faith the child does not hold.
George Haldeman Seattle
Some 30 years ago when I started my education to become a research
scientist, my biology professor began our introductory biology course with
a lecture on the theory of creationism. He carefully laid out its tenets
and ended the lecture with, "The problem with theory of creationism is
that it generates no testable hypotheses for scientific inquiry using the
scientific method and, therefore, is not science. We will no longer
consider this theory in this class." I am so thankful because I learned
the difference between science and non-science early on. If the new
creationism, intelligent design, was taught in this comparative manner to
establish the difference between biological science based on testable
hypotheses and intelligent design, a legitimate religious philosophy that
is not science, then I would encourage its inclusion in even our science
classrooms including physics, chemistry, and geology. It should take no
more than 20-30 minutes to outline its thesis, give it its due, and then
relegate it to the world of non-science. On the other hand, if school
boards truly wish to the explore the fascinating historical debate between
science vs. religion in depth, as President Bush advocates, they ought to
set up a history of the science and religion class expressly for that
purpose.
Tom Moench, Ph.D. Bainbridge Island
Of course Bruce Chapman?s Intelligent design theories should be part of
an individual's education, but not in natural science class? Only in
philosophy class.
Philosophically, I believe in God, the creative intelligent force
behind complexity and diversity, but not for that reason would I try to
force my philosophy into the domain of hard sciences, which throughout the
history of their development have discovered and have continued to
discover, how diversity and complex structures have evolved.
Evolutionary theories still evolve since Darwin first enunciated them,
and they add to an already enormous contribution in explaining the natural
universe. Thanks to this contribution, our body of knowledge can explain
with an important degree of certainty much of the intimate workings of
nature.
Creationism on the other hand, should be taught in Sunday school, or
world religion class. Mysticism can only be proven in the interior domain
of an individual's mind, whereas evolutionary theories can be proved or
dismissed by external and public scientific enquiry. Plain common sense,
or plain intelligence should dictate these basic differentiations to avoid
such unnecessary and unproductive controversies.
Judy Alba Bainbridge Island
In my opinion, Rabbi Mark Glickman, answered the question very well in
his article in your newspaper on Aug. 27. Because there is no scientific
research or proof that intelligent design exists (or existed) it should
not be taught in science classes. It certainly is a subject that can be
discussed in humanities classes; but these classes then also should
consider all of the creation stories that exist, whether they be of
Aborigine, American Indian, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hinduism, or
similar sources.
Karl F. Dudey Bothell
31
My answer to your question is yes, based on the following
rationale.
The debate about intelligent design hinges on one question: Was God
involved in the evolution of human beings or was he not? Most scientists
probably believe that he wasn't, but they can't prove it. The most they
can legitimately say is that in their opinion his involvement was
unnecessary. On the other hand, the proponents of intelligent design can't
prove scientifically that he was, despite much circumstantial evidence to
that effect. So the question cannot be answered definitively, which means
that individuals must decide for themselves, based on what makes the most
sense to them. The proper role of the schools is to educate students in
both sides of the argument so that these decisions can be fully informed.
It is not the schools' job to bias students' beliefs toward the
"scientific" explanation, which may or may not be the true one. Doing so
would be another step towards making atheism our established religion -
something our founding fathers surely never intended.
Clark McKee Anacortes
My answer to your question is absolutely not--this question was settled
a long time ago in the Scopes trial. Religion belongs in our churches and
our homes. We are seeing an increasing erosion of the separation of church
and state. In addition, the continued denial of scientific findings is
having a monumental destructive effect globally (e.g., AIDS and global
warming). As a nation that at one point produced some of the brightest and
the best, we increasingly seem to have our heads in the sand.
Carolyn Rasch Seattle
I absolutely believe in intelligent design. In fact, I believe in a
designer intelligent enough not to leave any fingerprints. I would be
delighted to go into any school to witness to my beliefs. But not in a
science class.
I think that the people who want intelligent design taught in science
classes are probably right about the origin of the universe. They just
don't know squat about science.
Jack McCarthy Smokey Point
Intelligent design should not be taught in public schools. ID
proponents have the unrestricted freedom to teach their beliefs in Bible
school classrooms in every community across the country. They may warn
their flocks against the dangers of public education and science through
published literature, private Bible studies, and T.V. and radio shows.
Parents are free to bring their children to whatever church they choose
for their weekly dose of "alternative theories" based on religious
tradition. What more do they want? All these freedoms aren't enough; they
also want airtime in publicly funded schools.
My question is this: Why do Christian leaders and educators need the
public education system, and therefore the government, to do their jobs
for them?
Why do they need my tax dollars to prop up their religious dogmas? Let
the churches compete, using their vast financial resources, for the minds
and hearts of American school children. Perhaps healthy competition will
encourage them to provide solid evidence, rather than mere hopes and
hunches, for their "theory." People have theories about all kinds of
things, including UFOs, ghosts, and channeling the dead, all supported by
passionate feelings, personal testimony, and a great deal of questionable
"evidence." That doesn't mean they deserve to be given equal time in a
public classroom alongside true science.
Tiffany Greenleaf Kenmore
Should intelligent design theory be taught in science classrooms?
Absolutely not. It is not an alternative scientific theory: it is
untestable. Appeals to "irreducible complexity", that some structures are
so complex that to evolve them would be like expecting to throw bricks
into the air and expecting them to come down in the form of a house, are
misleading analogies. Houses have not evolved this way -- they come from
simpler forms of architecture that have undergone development, innovation
and testing, a form of selection over millennia. Natural selection is a
mechanism that sorts out successful small steps towards complexity from
small unsuccessful variations, building complexity from the ground up.
Evolutionary theory has been severely tested for a nearly a
century-and-a-half. Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance, but discovery
of the gene and particulate inheritance provides a mechanism consistent
with evolution. Early estimates of the age of the earth did not provide
enough time for evolution to have occurred, but the discovery of radiation
and its role in warming the earth significantly expanded estimates of the
earth's age to over 4 billion years. Species distributions that could not
be naturalistically explained were resolved by the discovery of
continental drift.
Evolutionists have given straightforward accounts of the evolution of
eyes, rotary flagella, and other complex features of organisms in
hundreds-of-thousands of peer-reviewed articles relying on multiple
independent forms of evidence, a process known as "consilience."
Intelligent Design theory is promoted by a small number of scientists,
often non-biologists, who ignore the vast number of natural phenomena that
evolutionary theory does explain. To count as a scientific theory,
Intelligent Design theory must be able to provide a better explanation of
these successes than existing theory rather than focusing on a handful of
anomalies. Rather than providing explanatory tools for these patterns, it
is fundamentally an appeal to miracles. While people are free to hold
their opinions and express their faith as citizens, not all opinions
should be taught in science classrooms. Evolutionary theory remains the
"best science" of the day.
Preston Hardison Seattle
Evolution is a religion based solely on faith while science is the
accumulation of physical knowledge. Science can be used to disprove
evolution and show it for what it really is -- the product of an
over-active imagination -- a fairy tale for adults.
For example, there is a law that governs the entire universe. Everyone
uses it and is impacted by it. It is the law of cause and effect. Part of
this law's definition states that you may never have an effect that is
greater than its cause. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is directly
related to cause and effect. It is summarized by saying that everything
moves toward disorder -- or a condition known as entropy -- unuseable
energy. Scientifically speaking, because of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, every cause will create a lesser effect! How does a more
advanced life form - the effect - come from a simpler life form - the
cause? Energy is continually moving into a more chaotic state -- with less
usable energy -- not into a larger, more complex universe. So begins the
quandry of evolution.
But an even bigger problem for evolution is the First Law of
Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It states
that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change in form. If
energy cannot be created, then something cannot appear from nothing.
Interestingly, the First Law of Thermodynamics actually proves that God
has always existed. This law states something could not come from nothing.
There has to be a creator God, or there would never have been a physical
universe.
Is it possible for a rock to come to life? While such a question seems
silly, this is, in essence, what the theory of evolution teaches.
Evolution stands and falls on whether non-living matter can be
transformed, through a series of random events, into organic - living
matter. At the heart of the "origins of life" debate lies the fundamental
scientific law - the Law of Biogenesis. It states that life can only come
from life. Only living matter produces living matter. Non-living matter
cannot be transformed into living organisms. Stop and think about the
careful creative forethought that has to precede even the existence of
matter.
Anything complex that appeared too quickly, or appeared without any
prior organism being its precursor, would be an embarrassment to
proponents of evolution. So is the trilobite. These extinct invertebrates
existed in vast numbers millions of years ago. Also, these creatures seem
to have appeared suddenly, with no fossil record of anything of the like
before them. What is amazing is that these creatures had remarkably
complex vision systems. So complex were their eyes (hexagonal-lensed),
that no vertibrae possesses anything comparable today.
Think for a moment on the complexity required to form the first eye. Or
what caused a cell to become sensitive to light. You cannot explain the
process by evolution, there is only one other option - it was designed.
The same is true for sexual reproduction or the human body for that
matter. And how does one explain the human spirit?
Evolutionists theorize that at some point in this expanding universe of
non-organic matter, an environment formed that allowed a "soupy goop" to
make the transition from inorganic, non-living matter into organic, living
matter. But this cosmic goop could not just form directly into a working
cell. First, amino acids must link together to become more complex
structures --proteins. By their very nature, amino acids have to be
specifically arranged to form functioning proteins. Could this happen by
chance?
There is even another degree of complexity required to form proteins.
Not only do these amino acids have to come together, they must bond in "an
extraordinarily complex and irregular three-dimensional shape - a
twisting, turning, tangled chain of amino acids" -- DNA. It has been
estimated that the odds of forming just one protein naturalistically is
approximately 1 in 10,125 -- not to mention the numerous proteins required
for a living cell.
Why do people reject fact when it is shown to them? "For the invisible
things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:19-20). We are without
excuse when we teach evolution as fact, instead of the simplistic and
fanatical myth that it is.
Evolution has gone from something "understood only by the scholarly
elite" to an utterly illogical fallacy, believed only by the blind,
foolish -- and ignorant!
Richard Lee Shoreline
Can intelligent design and evolution co-exist, on an equal footing, or
in other words, did both happen simultaneously or does one negate
consideration of the other? If there is an intelligent designer, then, on
the cosmic scale under discussion, He/It would surely have to take
responsibility for ALL OF IT. Cannot take credit just for what is
perceived, by humans, as good.
Millions of years ago, a huge rock smashed into this planet, affecting
the environment so drastically that the dinosaurs, etc. who had inhabited
this planet for millions of years, all perished. Was there an "intelligent
decision" behind this catastrophe, guiding that rock, thereby abolishing
the dinosaurs, and preparing the planet for occupation by the "chosen"
human race?
Are we honest enough to ask ourselves is it sheer human ego to not
accept a beginning and an end to all life, and all life forms, on this
planet, this relatively tiny speck in the universe? One day the sun will
burn out, and all life forms on this planet will cease to exist, and there
will be no one left to ask the original question.
John Spencer Seattle
Any person who sincerely believes in God believes in evolution. Witness
the magnificence of fossilized dinosaur bones protruding from an
escarpment of geological layers from 200 million to a few thousand years
ago. Or witness the accumulation of thousands of fossil specimens
illustrating the march of species over the ages. Witness the many, many
experiments in evolution routinely performed in classrooms and labs in
quality schools around the country and seen in current observations in the
field. Witness the new insights developed with DNA analysis.
All of these consistently expound the same evolution.
God is not a prankster who put all these in place to trick us. They are
there for us to appreciate, understand, and take awe at. If one wants to
discuss a God who generously provides all this for us, that is fine, but
such discussion takes nothing away from evolution, is not an alternative
to evolution, and has no place in the science classes where evolution is
taught.
Len Goodisman Bothell
com
You report that "one of the smartest guys in Seattle" believes
"evolution does not reasonably explain the complexity of biological
systems" and intelligent design offers an alternative. We don't know what
formed your opinion of this "guy" as smart or what he actually said but we
do know the statement about evolution is neither smart, intelligent, nor
informed.
Evolution, as a science, leaves very few significant gaps in what it
tries to explain. We do not "know," have not proven everything but where
other sciences may have significant gaps, evolution does not.
Responsible reporting requires that a statement about the alleged
weaknesses of evolutionary theory, or any theory, should offer at least
one such sample weakness and allow for a response. To date, all such
allegations of weaknesses have been seen to be ignorant, misinformed, or
disingenuous, and do not deserve to be reported seriously. If such an
example is offered, I would be happy to clarify the situation as would
many scientists with more specific credentials. Dawkin's book, "The
Ancestor's Tale," gives a good assessment of what we know and don't know
in evolution.
Len Goodisman Bothell
The simple answer to this question is NO!
I know there is a growing amount of pressure by many very religious
people to include creationism or its subtle twin intelligent design in
schools as part of a science curriculum and given equal weight to
evolution and cosmology. However, both creationism and intelligent design
are theological, not scientific concepts. If the state allows either or
both of them to be taught in our schools, it should only be in a class on
religious philosophy or world religions{lsaquo}as an elective
subject{lsaquo}or in church Sunday schools. Otherwise it would violate the
separation of church and state. Additionally, neither subject should
appear in any of our stateΉs science textbooks.
Many people think that intelligent design is more scientific than
creationism, but it is not. It allows for evolution within but not between
species, as if that makes it more scientific. The concept still requires
the existence of a deity that created and designed the universe and living
beings. How intelligent a design is it when male apes and humans have
nipples and humans have a vermiform appendix, neither of which has any
physiological function?
David Tonkin Port Townsend
Should intelligent design be taught in science class? Yes, but only if
science and evolution can be taught in the church, including church
schools.
Jerome Chroman Seattle
Einstein argued that matter can't be created or destroyed -- just
rearranged. Even if we are to accept Darwin's well-stated theory of
evolution, we have to trace those beginning molecules to somewhere. Humans
come from monkeys; monkeys come from fish; fish come from ancient oceans
throbbing with photo-synthesis; oceans come from those original molecules
floating around in space that finally collided in one giant bang. (To
state it very, very simply.) But where did those first molecules come
from? We have seen phenomenal rearrangements of matter throughout our
world's development, but I have never heard an answer to the question as
to where those first molecules originated. How can something finite 'just
always exist'? How can something that is subject to our world's law of
physics, which stresses limits and rules, come into being all by itself,
and defy those laws? My only guess is that they didn't defy any laws: that
something bigger, grander, and INFINITE put them there. In a universe
where nothing can create or destroy itself, there had to be something
beyond the laws of physics to create something out of nothing. That leads
me to a creator. I believe there is enough question in Darwin's theory,
and enough credibility in the intelligent design theory, to at least
warrant a teaching of both in schools.
Greta Weisman Seattle
This long running war between religion and science seems totally
unnecessary to me.
Science is about the logical world of facts and mathematics while
religion is about the intuitive world of spirituallity and reflection.
Isn't the Golden Rule still golden whether the sun goes around the
Earth or the Earth goes around the sun?
Are the laws of gravity affected by our speculations about its
origins?
We were given the gift of curiosity, so, over time, we could come to
appreciate the full majesty of the universe we live in.
We should teach our children both science and religion to prepare them
for the future, science to advance our understanding of the physical
world, and religion to help them feel comfortable with the vast amount of
things that we do not yet understand.
Jan Hillmam Olympia
Intelligent design is another term for creationism and is not in
anyway, shape, or form -- science. Clearly it should not be part of a
science curriculum. ID is an idea that is not accepted by mainstream
scientists, cannot be supported by evidence, can not be tested, and can
not be analyzed. ID is an idea, not a science. Voodoo and a flat Earth are
other ideas among many others that are not taught in school. Leave ID out
of the science class!
David Gould
Seattle
How did God do it? Intelligent design is no answer; it is a movement
that promotes ignorance and darkness. "Life is complex; therefore God must
have created it." Suppose Copernicus and those who followed him had
blindly accepted the religious view of the time, "The movements of planets
are complex; God obviously put Earth and Man at the center of the
universe." That would have squashed development of the scientific method
that has brought us astronomy, physics, biology, medicine, modern
agriculture and delivered us from the filth and misery of the Dark Ages.
Perhaps science curricula should include a practical examination of the
scientific method and comparison with pseudo-sciences such as intelligent
design, astrology, and UFOs. It's clear that many people don't understand
the difference. A healthy dose of humor might also help. The Flying
Spaghetti Monster Web site (venganza.org) proposes a theory that is
equally as valid as intelligent design.
Jim Corbin Woodinville
I move that all atheists and agnostics accept the existence of God or a
higher power as a hypothetically true initial premise for the purposes of
further argument. That way we can actually focus on the science issue.
The existence or non-existence of a greater power has no bearing on the
scientific method, which only assumes that the universe operates according
to consistent laws, and that we can get increasingly reliable information
about them by asking falsifiable and testable questions. There is no
conceivable scientific answer to the question of whether or not the
operating system of the universe had an author, or whether it just exists.
Asserting the existence of a higher power does not add anything to
scientific inquiry, but neither does it subtract anything from it.
The problem with creationism (and Intelligent Design is just another
version of it) is not that it posits the existence of a higher power, but
that it posits constant diddling with an inadequate system by said power,
with the explicit intent of promoting biblical literalism at some level.
Intelligent design is more appropriately called stupid design, because it
assumes that a higher power smart enough to invent the operating system of
the universe is nevertheless too stupid to get the job done right the
first time -- it's still and must always be in beta test mode.
The computer analogy is modern, but the basic idea certainly isn't.
Newton personally believed that God could and did intervene in the
workings of the universe to keep the planets on track, but his minister
friend Thomas Burnet strongly disagreed. In the 18th century they used
clockwork rather than computers for the analogy.
"We think him a better Artist that makes a Clock that strikes regularly
at every hour from the Springs and Wheels which he puts in the work, than
he that hath so made his Clock that he must put his finger to it every
hour to make it strike: And if one should contrive a piece of Clockwork so
that it should beat all the hours, and make all its motions regularly for
such a time, and that time being come, upon a signal given, or a Spring
toucht, it should of its own accord fall all to pieces; would not this be
look'd upon as a piece of greater Art, than if the Workman came at that
time prefixt, and with a great Hammer beat it into pieces?"
And that's far from the oldest assertion of the concept. Augustine of
Hippo and several Islamic scholars had similar notions. For a long time
many theologians have thought that constant diddling with natural law by
its creator would automatically imply that the creator isn't very bright-a
notion very much at odds with traditional concepts of God.
The bottom line is that the proposition put forward by proponents of
Stupid Design, "Biologists haven't explained everything yet," does not
happen to be a scientific theory at all. George Gilder, a long-time
affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has even admitted as much, being on
record as saying "Intelligent Design itself does not have any content."
And if you believe in a creator deity, characterizing that deity as a
third-rate engineer is bad theology as well
Martha K. Koester Seattle
Yes, intelligent design should be taught in science classes as an
example of the kind of uncritical mystic thinking that is the exact
opposite of the scientific method which requires that a problem be
identified and critically examined leading to an hypothesis which can be
tested. If it fails, it must be abandoned, if it cannot be tested, it must
be set aside. Intelligent design is the kind of authoritative, uncritical,
undisciplined thinking that suffocated the human mind for 1500 years (from
the Greeks to the Renaissance). In intelligent design, if someone asks why
the sun rises then sets, they are told it is the intelligent designer's
(God's) plan, therefore, no further thought on the matter is required.
G.R. Chambers Bellevue
Life as a product of chance versus design has been debated as far back
as ancient Greece. Today scientists are observing nanotechnology:
astonishingly sophisticated molecular machines in all living cells. In
human experience, such complex machines are always the result of
intelligent design. Thus hundreds of highly credentialed scientists from
every continent are increasingly skeptical of Darwin's mechanism of
natural selection acting on random mutations as adequate explanation for
all of life's marvels. Your statement that "available physical evidence
supports [Darwinism]" is exactly the point in dispute.
In your column you pictured the hands (presumably) of "the designer"
like a magician conjuring up the Earth. But that image could just as well
depict Darwinian theory: a little mutation here and there and, presto! the
mammalian eye, an organ of staggering complexity. We the public are
getting tired of these claims that Darwin practically invented biology.
Although ID is caricatured as the stuff of fundamentalist Christianity;
Muslims, Hindus and people of every religious stripe are applauding design
theory. Even Deepak Chopra's blog (Aug. 24) weighed in for ID.
So yes, I believe we should discuss the intelligent design hypothesis
in school. Let the controversy begin; biology will have never been so much
fun!
We should also ask why excellent scientists like Richard Sternberg and
Guillermo Gonzales are in danger of losing their jobs for showing a
favorable disposition toward ID.
Carol Johnson Seattle
46
The usual criticism of intelligent design is that it's bad science, or
that it is not science at all. And proponents of intelligent design are
criticized for not understanding the scientific method or the meaning of
theory.
I don't understand why no one criticizes ID on religious grounds.
Perhaps ID should stand for insulted deity. Why do these people need to
dumb-down-God to somewhere in the Bronze Age? Is it really so difficult to
imagine that an almighty God just might have fabricated the universe in
something like the four to ten dimensions of space-time or string theory
or according to some more exotic mechanism not yet even contemplated? Is
it really so difficult to imagine a creator that set in motion laws of
thermodynamics and quantum mechanics that would enable the formation of
self-replicating molecules like DNA?
As we argue that intelligent design is non-science, we should also
consider that it may be a narrow, simplistic, and shallow view of
creation.
Tom Hiester Sammamish
Intelligent design is not science. Papering over the weak spots in our
knowledge with divine intervention is equivalent to filling in the blank
spots on the map with "here there be dragons." But assuming there is a
designer still leaves science with the task of trying to understand the
design. And as best we can tell from the evidence, that design includes
evolution.
On the other hand, putting forth intelligent design as science opens
the question of who or what the designer is to investigation. Given the
lack of scientific evidence in this matter, we can only speculate. Those
parents who are uncomfortable with their children learning evolution and
cosmology will be even less happy when science class includes discussions
of demiurges and universal consciousness.
By failing to understand the respective roles of religion and science,
intelligent design is a disservice to both. Not very intelligent,
really.
David Brodeur Lake Stevens
1. "Science" used to mean "knowledge obtained by the scientific
method."
Later, "scientific" became synonymous with "credible" because the
method reliably yielded credible results that everyone could see.
Today, creationists want to ride the coattails of science to
credibility by teaching creationism or its variants in science
classes.
But they reject the scientific method that made "scientific" synonymous
with "credible" in the first place. Their statements are therefore not
scientific and therefore not credible, no matter where they are
taught.
2. You can't directly observe evolution but you can directly observe
the benefits that humans reaped from evolutionary theory. All modern
biology and medicine is based on evolution. To see this you don't need to
dig through fossils; just dig through medical journals and see how often
they mention evolution.
(Experiments on mice only make sense if mice and humans share key
biological mechanisms derived from a common ancestor.) Who cares if
evolution actually happened or not, if medicines developed using the
theory of evolution reliably cure real people?
3. Creationists are not just saying, "evolution doesn't explain
everything."
They're saying, "evolution doesn't explain some things -- so God must
exist -- and it must be the God of the Bible -- and it must be the God of
the Bible as we understand him -- so the religious decrees that we derive
from the Bible must be the law of the land." Each of these steps is a
giant leap of faith, much bigger than any gaps in evolutionary theory.
Poking holes in evolution does not make any of the remaining inferences
any more believable.
Ilya Shlyakhter Princeton, N.J.
1)
All too often those who oppose intelligent design take the position
that evolution and/or Darwinism alone can explain the origin of life on
planet earth. They also seem to deny the implications of Einstein's Theory
of General Relativity as relates to the origin of the universe which
proves that the universe came from nothing (ex nihilo). The General
Relativity Theory also violates the First Law of Thermodynamics which
states matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed but it is
still accepted as scientific fact.
As to origins of life, here are just a few of the many facts science
alone cannot explain:
No living cell, plant or animal, has ever been discovered that does not
contain DNA, the instruction set of all known life forms, even those
billions of years old. Even the most basic modern bacteria, a single cell
organism, have about 1.2 million base pairs (rungs) in its DNA molecule.
Just this year it was reported that Anthony Flew, an internationally
renowned atheist, acknowledged he is now a Deist based primarily on the
DNA issue.
Mutations are, according to evolutionary theory, the only means of new
species coming to be. Yet science has never been able to demonstrate that
any mutation adds information to the DNA molecule, a necessity for new
species to develop.
It is known by the scientific world that most phyla suddenly appeared
within a geologically short period of time about 530 million years ago, a
period known as the Cambrian explosion or Biological Big Bang! This is not
generally taught in our schools and is inconsistent with the micro changes
proposed by evolutionary theory.
Two well known atheists, Carl Sagen of Nova fame, and Frances Crick,
co-discoverer of DNA determined that the odds of human beings evolving on
earth were 1 chance in 1 with 2 billion zeroes after it (10 to the minus
2,000,000,000). This became one of the arguments used to get funding for
the SETI project (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence).
There are many other incredibly complex issues related to the most
basic living cell, but space does not allow expanding on the above for
this brief note.
D. Brent Warwick Auburn
Yes, intelligent design should be taught.
As a scientist (BS, biochemistry and genetics, Ph.D. Pathology) I
accepted evolution for most of my life (I'm 58 years old). Unlike most
scientists, however, I took the time to actually read a few books about
intelligent design to gauge for myself it's credibility. The most shocking
revelation to me was not the argument for an intelligent designer, but the
presentation of scientific evidence and arguments weighing against the
validity of current and past evolutionary theories. These evidences and
arguments, often originally made by competing evolutionary theorists in
peer-reviewed publications, are not fully disclosed to students by
educators or the lay press, possibly because they undermine that
individual's , or organization's, personal conclusions on the subject.
Frankly, my own conclusion is that belief in evolution as "fact" has
itself become a religion, defended blindly by "faith," without distortion
by intellectual honesty, objectivity or an effort to even scrutinize
available, if contrary, evidences. "Religious Darwinism" might be an
appropriate label of this faith.
The debate for many is, in reality, not about origins, but about
whether God is real. For those who think not, evolution is simply an
offensive weapon. Nevertheless, I primarily support teaching intelligent
design in schools not as a defense regarding the existence of God, but as
"full disclosure" regarding what is currently a distorted, one-sided and
scientifically dishonest presentation of a theory in crisis (a conclusion
only discernable if one has taken the time and effort to inspect all the
evidences, not just the Readers' Digest version).
Robert T. Abbott Sammamish
No, intelligent design should not be part of science education. The ID
advocates seem to think that they can remove the religious components from
"creation science", and build valid science out of what's left.
Their plan failed because there was never any real science in creation
science -- all they have to work with is pseudoscience.
If and when the ID advocates do manage to come up with some real
science to support their views, the place for them to push their ideas
will be in the scientific community, not grade schools. New scientific
ideas NEVER succeed by being legislated into the schools -- they succeed
by convincing scientists of their value. ID advocates want to bypass this
step, ostensibly because the scientific community is biased against them.
If they had a real case, this would slow down acceptance of their
arguments, but not stop it, so they could afford to be patient.
Since they have no real case, they've chosen to try an end run
instead.
So, let's just say I oppose government bailouts for failed science.
Gordon Davisson Bellevue
Should intelligent design be part of science education? Should poetry
be a part of chemistry? Art history a part of calculus?
The bottom line is that Intelligent Design simply isn't science. A
scientific theory is different than any old "theory" you or I might come
up with. Evolution is a scientific theory that has mountains of supporting
evidence in archeology, microbiology, and more. Intelligent Design is a
philosophical speculation, not a scientific theory. It's not a provable
claim, and has only political and religious, not scientific, inspirations.
At this point in history, Evolution may or may not have a couple gaps
in the puzzle, but it is the leading theory that is overwhelmingly
supported by scientists who are experts in the field. If you put together
a jigsaw puzzle, and find you're missing a piece, can you still recognize
the picture, or do you toss it out and proclaim it useless? The
evolutionary model works, and is the cornerstone for all of our work from
antibiotics to zoology.
Philosophic debate and religious discussions are important, but only
science gives us a solid foundation to understand our world. How many of
these scientific theories have you relied upon today: gravity, chemical
interactions, a spherical earth revolving around the sun?
What's truly dangerous is the growing contempt for science. The last
time we shunned scientific inquiry, we called it the Dark Ages.
