Leland L. Smith
Challenges D'Agostino On Science and Darwin
"Human Events" August 25, 2000
Joseph A. D'Agostino's American Scene article titled "Science vs. Darwin"
(June 2) implying conflict between science and Darwin is misnamed.
The
conflict is between science and â ¶intelligent design," the new name
for
creation science.
There is no conflict between science and Darwin. Science, the
rational
inquiry into our Universe and what it contains, into Nature, if you
please, is alive, rigorously tests matters all the time and modifies
Darwinian concepts as befit new information. Scientists are not
turning
away from Darwin; rather they are very active in the pursuit of new
discoveries that ultimately will clarify our deepest mystery, what
is
life. The intelligent design authorities named by D'Agostino
have quite
modest science credentials such that one may wonder whether they
understand what science is and what it is not.
Modern science and intelligent design are both creations of the human
mind. We must recognize that our understanding of either concept is
limited by our three spatial perceptions and a fourthâ time.
Higher
order perceptions, among which may be spiritual feeling, divine
revelation, and intelligent design, may exist but cannot be examined
for
want of means. We must insist that descriptions and explanations
of life
and our universe be devised from our four senses of perception that
can be
tested by suitable rigorous means. We must insist that science based
on
observation, experimentation, and logic be called science, and that
other
concepts such as intelligent design, built on observation but questionable
logic and devoid of means of testing experimentally, attempting to
address
the same issues, be recognized as something else, not science.
As we cannot perceive higher order dimensions in our physical world,
does
that mean there are none? If there were such things, how would
we know of
them? We simply cannot answer this question. Human intellect
and
invention are powerful forces, and if a concept is useful to believers,
so
be it. However, we must not foist such notions on others in the guise
of
science. The unity and complexity of life is seen by science
as a natural
progression from unknown origins. By contrast, intelligent design
offers
as alternative the view that the observed unity and complexity of life
could not occur by chance but must be result of design by some agency
that
cannot be defined or described but which closely resembles the creation
stories of ancient religions. No means of testing the hypothesis
can be
suggested. Only disbelief of science is offered in support of
the matter.
Informed scientists in the world accept modern biology based on Darwin,
tested as it be at the molecular, cellular, tissue, and high levels
of
life. All data evince natural events we can understand; none suggest
design. Concepts are revised as new and better information is developed.
By contrast, intelligent design disregards modern molecular biology,
rejects massive amounts of sound information, yet proposes a mystical
hypothesis for which no test can be devised. How do we test the
concept
experimentally?
--Leland L. Smith Austin, Tex .