'Intelligent design' is nothing more than bogus science

Date published: 6/16/2005

Doug Cowan's column on "intelligent design" sounds so reasonable ["Teaching kids to think can mean discussing intelligent design ," June 7].

Why shouldn't high school biology students be exposed to this alternative scientific theory of the origin of life?

Quite simply, because "intelligent design" is not a scientific theory. It has none of the characteristics of a scientific theory. It provides no explanation for observable phenomena other than "then a miracle occurred."

It has no predictive value for future events. Its proponents do no laboratory or field research, nor do they publish their evidence for "intelligent design" in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Rather, they criticize evolution and point out its perceived shortcomings. They do their best to mislead the lay public with statements like "some highly credentialed scientists insist that there are limitations to Darwin's theory."

There are a few advocates of intelligent design with legitimate scientific degrees, but many with bogus credentials. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution as a fact, which incidentally reflects the scientific use of the word "theory."

There are other examples of misleading or pejorative statements in Mr. Cowan's article. He states that he dissects the evidence for macroevolution (formation of a new species) "using recent discoveries that have raised important questions among evolutionary biologists."

The implication is that the whole theory of evolution is being called into question. New research always raises questions among scientists, but it is not true that mainstream scientists are questioning the basic tenets of a theory that has been under refinement for 150 years.

"Intelligent design" is the latest iteration in the evolution of "creationism," which has been thoroughly discredited and banned from our schools as religious teaching.

We should no more be teaching "intelligent design" in biology classes than we should be teaching astrology in astronomy classes.

Roy F. Gratz

Fredericksburg

Follow us on

Read more stories about Fredericksburg
Date published: 6/16/2005