2008 Woodie Awards
Who came up with this?
Nothing scientific about intelligent design
Jorden Kessler
Issue date: 11/30/07 Section: OpEd Page
It seems, recently, there have been many expressions of support for teaching intelligent design (ID) as a valid alternative to natural selection and evolution. I must speak my mind on this matter, or I will choke on my conscience.
ID is the hypothesis that life as we know it is too complex to be explained by natural processes such as natural selection and evolution, and that there must have been some sort of intelligent being that designed complex living organisms.
The scientific method is taught in the very first chapter of many high school biology textbooks. The scientific method is a process that includes formulating a hypothesis, conducting an experiment to test that hypothesis, gathering the data from the experiment, and then, of course, evaluating the data to determine whether or not it supports the original hypothesis. This is the process used to explore every phenomenon in the universe.
When the scientific method is applied to ID, it simply comes up short. The hypothesis can be formulated, but what experiment might be used to test the assertions of intelligent design? No scientist has ever come up with an experiment that tests the validity of the ID hypothesis. So on what rational basis should this hypothesis be taught as an alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection?
It shouldn't.
On the Origin of Species, the book published by Darwin in 1859, was inspired by his observations during his visit to the Galapagos Islands in 1835. During this trip Darwin observed many types of birds, all of which seemed to be different. After returning and speaking with a bird expert, Darwin learned that these birds were in fact of the same species.
It is from this knowledge that he concluded that species are susceptible to change based on the environmental pressures they encounter. For example, a bird with a large beak is capable of eating large seeds. If its habitat only has plants that produce large seeds, birds with beaks that are smaller will not survive.
ID is the hypothesis that life as we know it is too complex to be explained by natural processes such as natural selection and evolution, and that there must have been some sort of intelligent being that designed complex living organisms.
The scientific method is taught in the very first chapter of many high school biology textbooks. The scientific method is a process that includes formulating a hypothesis, conducting an experiment to test that hypothesis, gathering the data from the experiment, and then, of course, evaluating the data to determine whether or not it supports the original hypothesis. This is the process used to explore every phenomenon in the universe.
When the scientific method is applied to ID, it simply comes up short. The hypothesis can be formulated, but what experiment might be used to test the assertions of intelligent design? No scientist has ever come up with an experiment that tests the validity of the ID hypothesis. So on what rational basis should this hypothesis be taught as an alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection?
It shouldn't.
On the Origin of Species, the book published by Darwin in 1859, was inspired by his observations during his visit to the Galapagos Islands in 1835. During this trip Darwin observed many types of birds, all of which seemed to be different. After returning and speaking with a bird expert, Darwin learned that these birds were in fact of the same species.
It is from this knowledge that he concluded that species are susceptible to change based on the environmental pressures they encounter. For example, a bird with a large beak is capable of eating large seeds. If its habitat only has plants that produce large seeds, birds with beaks that are smaller will not survive.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 7
bfaust
Brady
posted 12/01/07 @ 11:00 AM EST
Just because you cannot prove Intelligent Design does not mean that it is illogical or even unscientific. I would argue that Intelligent Design is more logical than the theory of evolution. (Continued…)
ap
posted 12/03/07 @ 3:34 PM EST
brady,
First, id is not a theory. the•o•ry "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of FACTS, especially one that has been REPEATEDLY TESTED or is widely accepted and can be used to MAKE PREDICTIONS about natural phenomena" (dictionary. (Continued…)
Miami Grad
posted 12/04/07 @ 8:36 AM EST
You are right, only FACTS should be taught in school. Forget about intangible philosophical concepts, abstracts ideals, or anything that will promote any type of dialogue, critical thinking and personal reflection. (Continued…)
ap
posted 12/04/07 @ 11:55 AM EST
Miami Grad,
I really didn't want to come on here again but you have left me no choice....
First, obviously you have no idea what this whole discussion is about. (Continued…)
E. Q. Kimball
posted 12/05/07 @ 4:59 PM EST
Pile of rocks/name in the sand is a ridiculous comparison.
I agree that life is not something that is easy to create, many things must line up for it to occur. (Continued…)
Spirit Orb
posted 12/07/07 @ 9:35 AM EST
Astrology is an important theory about the nature of the cosmos. It must be given equal weight to physics and astronomy in science classes! Just because it doesn't appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals doesn't mean it's wrong. (Continued…)
Post a Comment