Sometimes, in science, it’s just laid out like that. Yeah. And here is a wonderful example. The “National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has posted on its website four nearly simultanoeous op-ed pieces from scientists confronting intelligent design”:http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/170_a_quartet_of_opeds_9_1_2005.asp.
The papers in which these were published include the New York Times, which has of late run a series about the non-existent “Debate on Evolution”. At least, the non-existent **scientific** debate; certainly, social and philosphical circles have been debating it since it first appeared. But social desires and philosphical tracts are never a match for good old data – at least, in science – and evolution has withstood the hard tests science put to it over the last century, emerging as one of mankind’s preeminent scientific tools. From disease to speciation, evolution helps us understand the natural process by which life, in its many forms, changes.
In the order presented, and in the order I read them, here are the op-ed pieces:
* “One side can be wrong”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5274569-111414,00.html, by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne (The Guardian, Sep. 1, 2005)
* “Show Me the Science”:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1 by Daniel Dennett (New York Times, Aug. 28, 2005)
* “Teaching Science, The president is wrong on Intelligent Design.”:http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200508300823.asp
by John Derbyshire (National Review, Aug. 30, 2005)
* “Design isn’t science, Why biology classes shouldn’t teach intelligent design”:http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/12499058.htm
by Craig E. Nelson (Journal Gazette, Aug. 28, 2005)
These article make excellent points, and uncover some of the half-truths and falsehoods used in presenting intelligent design as if it were some kind of scientific competator with evolution. Go read them. Now.
That said, I liked a number of things. The first was the clear and painstaking definition of science. Starting with that is always best. Science isn’t my opinion vs. your opinion (“teach the controversy”). Science is hypothesis, experiment, data, and confirmation or refutation. Opinions become facts only when passed through the sieve of experimentation, and so such experimentation has never been proposed or carried out by so-called “proponents” of intelligent design.
Second, the point is made that real and valuable controversy exists in evolution, the kind of stuff late night grad student arguments are made from. But these are legitimate questions, because they can be tested with experimentation. Maybe not now, but propositions exist or can be written down for some kind of test that sorts out the reality of different ideas.
The third point that I liked was that the deceit of intelligent design, the trick used to fool the public into thinking there is a scientific controversy between these two ideas, is an old trick. Theory A fails to predict or explain well Observation X. Theory B, by implication, must therefore be correct. The hole, the lie, is that no statement is ever made as to whether theory B made a prediction about observation X. It’s truth by negative proof, which is not a proof in the case of science. If theory B (intelligent design) cannot offer a test that demonstrates it explains observation X, it is not a scientific theory and should not have more weight than theory A.
Good stuff. Good science.
