• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

SUNDAY SYMPOSIUM; Prove It: Science or Religion

Posted on: Sunday, 24 April 2005, 15:00 CDT

Evolution poses as science

In his April 17 article, Alan I. Leshner promoted the religion of evolution while denigrating faith in creation ("Call it intelligent design, but it's nothing more than religious creationism," Crossroads).

He twice mistakenly referred to "intelligent design theory." There is no such thing because intelligent design cannot be tested, nor can it be demonstrated. Both of these are required before a hypothesis can be accepted as a theory. Similarly, evolution cannot be tested, nor can it be demonstrated. This means that evolution and creationism are on equal footing; both are based on faith.

Evidence of intelligent design is all around us. Observe the orderly movement of the stars, moons and planets. Look at the symmetry of our own bodies and the bodies of animals. We don't seem to have a problem recognizing that the symmetry of a car or an airplane is the product of design. Why, then, would we even consider that symmetrical beings got here by time and chance? Symmetry requires design, not chance.

Leshner wrote that people like me have a "fundamental distrust of science." What I mistrust is folly posing as science, evolution being the prime example.

Our society is careful to make sure that religion is not taught in our public schools. However, religion is being taught in our public schools. The name of that religion is evolution.

Robert G. Cook

Cedarburg

Intelligent design is speculation

While a discussion regarding intelligent design may have a place in a philosophy or a theology class, it would be wrong to teach it as a scientific theory regarding the ascent of life on this planet as part of a modern biology curriculum.

Intelligent design replaces the basic concepts of science observation, analysis and hypothesis with speculation. To observe that the inner workings of a cell are too complex to have occurred naturally, and to imply that this could have occurred only through the design efforts of an intelligent "creator," provides a conclusion without any supporting evidence. Science has yet to prove or disprove the existence of a "creator."

Unlike religious dogma in which truth is based on faith, evolution by definition is a theory that therefore can be proved false if new evidence can be presented to both the scientific community and the general public for review.

If followers of intelligent design or scientific creation want to prove that current human evolutionary theory is false and that we did not ascend from earlier life forms that no longer exist, I suggest that they put on some boots, grab a small shovel and brush and go out and find the fossilized remains of a tyrannosaurus rex or other large meat-eating dinosaur with the remains of a partially digested human inside.

Jim Annes

Lake Geneva

Both are a matter of faith

As a molecular biologist, I find the theory of evolution to be insufficient in explaining real-world examples such as those given by David Berlinski ("Intelligent design can't be dismissed from a scientific perspective," Crossroads, April 17).

Life is extremely complex at the cellular level and even more so at the DNA level. Information in DNA, about 3 billion DNA letters worth, had to come from somewhere. Just as computer program has code that comes from a programmer, DNA information also needs an intelligent source. Self-assembly and millions of years of random chance assembling the genetic code do not hold up to the evidence.

However, I agree with writer Alan I. Leshner's notion that intelligent design is a matter of faith. But so is belief in evolution! Since none of us was present to see life begin, both groups take it on faith that it occurred in some fashion. So I have no difficulty having both ideas taught in public schools and allowing the students to investigate and test the evidence to decide for themselves.

Hypothesis formation, investigation, experimentation and data analysis are what real life science is all about.

Toby Mueller

Franksville

True science can be tested

Proponents of intelligent design tend to base their writings in pseudo-scientific terms. The problem is that intelligent design has no basis in any physical science; it is religious dogma masquerading as science in order to fool people. Make no mistake: Not only is there no controversy regarding the fact of evolution including observed instances of speciation any more than there is regarding the idea that the Earth is spherical, but there also is no scientific test to show that intelligent design is valid.

Evolution can be falsified for example, modern human fossils in the Triassic period would be a problem. Evolution can be tested for example, we can work out the transitions between a related set of species and see if we find the fossils for the transitions; many have been found.

Intelligent design has no such falsifiability or testability. It's literalist biblical creationism posing as legitimate science. It presumes design where there is none, based on "complexity," and proposes "god" for the solution. "Complexity" does not imply design, nor is "god" a valid scientific explanation.

Serious biologists, Mr. Berlinski, understand this. That's why intelligent design was kicked out of the scientific intellectual marketplace; it sells substandard and non-existent wares.

Don Kresch

Kenosha

No respect for boundaries

The dispute between science and religion comes from a mutual failure to respect their boundaries. Science speaks intelligently about the natural world, but it has no expertise regarding God or spiritual matters. Religion speaks intelligently about God and spiritual matters, but it has no expertise regarding the natural world. We'd all be better off if both focused on what they're good at and left the rest alone.

Science can tell us nothing about God. Scientists who stray onto spiritual topics often wax silly. Any who say that evolution says something about God are spouting absurdity. Evolution is silent about God.

Religion tells us nothing new about nature; its writers tend to misunderstand how science works. Creationism is a perfectly valid religious concept, but as science it's nonsense. Worse yet, creationism undermines faith with false "evidence" of God. When this "evidence" evaporates as it must will faith return or will disbelief fill the void?

Intelligent design is just creationism. Actually, it's the original creationism. Intelligent design is not scientific in any way.

There is no widely acknowledged term for science pretending to be religion; perhaps there should be. Whatever that term, it will not rightly include evolution. Evolution says nothing for or against God, something scientists should emulate.

Sean Samis

Wauwatosa

Copyright 2005, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. (Note: This notice does not apply to those news items already copyrighted and received through wire services or other media.)

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

More News in this Category