‘God Theory’ in Search of Some Scientific Credibility

“EVOLUTION” is a scientific theory in which the world is observed, facts are noted and conclusions are reached. If new facts emerge, the theory is adjusted or abandoned. “God” is a nonscientific “theory” in which observation of the real world plays no part, facts are ignored or actively rejected and, nevertheless, conclusions are reached. If new facts appear, they are ignored, just like the previous facts. Frequently the people who unearth the new facts are punished by the keepers of the “God theory”.

So-called “intelligent” design, defended by Professor Donald Macleod [pictured], is a nonscientific conf lation of non-fact and un-reason which is being used in an attempt to give “God theory” some scientific credibility. The interesting thing to me is that a theologian should feel the need to seek scientific respectability for his non-scientific beliefs. If the professor really believed in his God, he would rely on faith, not reason, to underpin his case. The truly religious response to science is to say: “Ignore the evidence, believe whatever I tell you.” Or, as an acquaintance of mine is liable to say when losing the argument:

“Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Alex Gallagher, 12 Phillips Avenue, Largs.

INTELLIGENT design is neither a theory, nor does it properly classify as “science”. In the scientific sense, a theory is an idea about the world which has a great deal of evidence in support of it, and whose predictions have been shown to agree with observations from the real world. Since ID makes no predictions it does not deserve the label theory; “conjecture” would be closer to reality. The argument that evolution is “just a theory” is therefore deeply amusing: there is no higher praise for a scientific explanation.

Secondly, since ID only points out the shortcomings in evolutionary theory, without suggesting alternative explanations, it cannot be falsified. If a statement cannot be proven false under any circumstances then it does not belong in the body of science.

ID merely uses scientificsounding words to say “the Designer did it”. It uses technical jargon to appeal to the layman as a legitimate science.

Finally, ID advocates (deliberately? ) confuse the theory of evolution (differentiation of species by natural selection) with abiogenesis (the creation of life from non-living substances) .

Evolutionary theory says nothing about how life first came into existence. The many flaws of intelligent design can be seen at www. talkdesign. org.

Dougal Stanton Mayfield, North Road, Dunbar.

PROFESSOR Donald Macleod makes the very reasonable point that a strong religious faith is compatible with the study of science, and acceptance of evolution through natural selection. He seems to have misunderstood that “intelligent design” is shorthand for a doctrine (not a theory, as Barry Thorpe points out) which claims this is not the case.

Also, I am puzzled that Professor Macleod seems to believe the operation of a television set is a miracle: “[God] produces TV pictures . . . with billions of particles, each one of which follows a totally unpredictable trajectory.” Television is based on laws of physics, which are more than adequate for predicting the motion of subatomic particles; it is no more a miracle than a light bulb or an automobile.

Dr Iain Bancarz, 12 Howden Street, Edinburgh.

IFWE ARE to be encouraged to spend time looking into the “theory” of intelligent design, may we now see emerging some new scientific interest in other theories that so exercised the minds of many intelligent people in the past? I refer to phlogiston, the bodily humours, the earth-centred universe, the music of the spheres, alchemy and the philosopher’s stone, medical miasmas, and so on.

Under which Nobel Prize discipline is the “theory” of intelligent design to be judged?

Dr K W Gemmell, 9 Weaver Place, East Kilbride.