Let Science Win
Omaha World-Herald, 08/07/2006
Creationism and its retooled update, intelligent design, are taking a beating
in the voting booths as well as the courts lately. As well they should.
The most recent drubbing was administered in Kansas, which has been at the
forefront of the anti-evolution movement in recent years. Starting in 1999,
voters installed, then removed, then re- installed a pro-intelligent design
majority in the state Board of Education. A primary last week appears to have
nominated candidates who, in the fall, should give the pro-evolutionists a 6-4
majority
Also, in February, the Ohio Board of Education dropped its mandate that 10th-
grade biology classes include a critical analysis of evolution. And last year,
a federal judge in Dover, Pa., ruled the teaching of intelligent design
unconstitutional because it amounted to warmed-over creationism
Evolution is the theory, first credibly postulated by Charles Darwin and
subsequently supported by the research of numerous scientists, that there is a
gradual, natural process by which a living thing changes into a different and
usually more complex or better form. Most often, evolution involves small
changes in genetic information transmitted from many parents to their
offspring that accumulate and, in a successful species, make it better suited
to living and reproducing in its environment
The generally recognized definition of creationism, as presented by the pro-
intelligent-design Discovery Institute, is the assertion that "humans and
other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of
time" after being created by God. ID, as it is called, is the idea that
an "intelligent designer" played a role in some aspect of the evolution of
life on Earth, usually the origin of life itself, according to a college-level
biological anthropology textbook published by McGraw-Hill
Scientific inquiry obviously does not require the removal of God from human
belief and faith. Science and faith can comfortably co- exist. The problem
with ID as a formal dogma, however, is that it is so intellectually feeble
when scrutinized under conventional scientific methods
This debate recently extended to the online and printed pages of National
Review, where one champion of ID has clashed with a more scientifically
oriented writer. National Review is a prestigious, staunchly conservative
magazine. Its July 17 issue published a lengthy article by George Gilder, a
bright star in the ID sky. Gilder was quickly answered by a regular
contributor to the magazine, John Derbyshire, in National Review Online
Derbyshire is a mathematician and writer. Among his books are a history of
algebra and a treatise on one of the most famous unsolved problems in higher
mathematics. Gilder, a widely known conservative writer and economic and
technological theorist, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute
The flaws in creationism and ID have been exposed time and again, though
proponents refuse to admit faults in their claims. Advocates of the ID
position have not formed any ideas or theories that can be tested, nor any
finding that can be reproduced by scientists
Evolution is central to modern biology, which is currently "going through a
phase of great energy and excitement," Derbyshire said, with the development
of gene technologies and the study of DNA, among other scientific advances
Gilder makes pronouncements about the limits of human understanding,
Derbyshire wrote, that echo past -- and grossly inaccurate -- dicta announcing
the end of scientific inquiry because everything is already known
Then Derbyshire quickly put his finger on one of the main weaknesses of ID and
organizations such as the Discovery Institute: After being around for many
years, they "don't discover things and don't do any science."
In the aggregate 30 years that the Discovery Institute and its offshoot Center
for Science and Culture have existed, he said, "not a single paper of
scientific standing (on ID) has come out of" either organization
Scientists, Derbyshire said, discover things. Some who operate in dynamic
fields discover new things almost daily. "What has the Discovery Institute
discovered?" he asked. "Scientists do not shun creationism because it is
revolutionary. They shun it because creationists don't do any science."
John G. West of the Discovery Institute told McClatchy Newspapers that no
political skirmish will ultimately answer the broad issue. He said, "The
debate over Darwin's theory will be won or lost over the science."
Please let him be correct.