Let me begin my rebuttal to Mr. Esteban’s lukewarm argument for non-exclusivity of certain ideas from our state-sanctioned textbooks by saying that I have no agenda other than to straighten out a simple logical error in his discussion of ID, so-called “Intelligent Design theory.”
Faith is a great thing to have (within tolerable reason); as one of last year’s SMU Distinguished Religious Life Award recipients I can respect those who wish to bring their ideas into the open forum. Kudos.
That being said, Intelligent Design is really cute and all, but it is not a scientific Theory (capital “T”), nor will it ever resemble such, regardless if it has a lobby or not.
I won’t bore the gentle reader by pointing out all the pseudo-science involved with its justification – e.g. dinosaur bones as hoaxes, blood clot stories, etc. Let me break it down folks: The only reason Evolution is considered a “Theory” is out of respect for labeling the physical laws of nature as such.
Intelligent Designers know enough not to refute physic’s rules (a.k.a. Laws) of gravity, inertia, thermodynamics, etc.
Biology’s rules for labeling natural occurrences maintain a casual, nominal distance with physic’s rules in many examples, such as in the case of “Cell Theory.” There is no refuting that the human body is made of cells. Look in a microscope. President Bush, John Ashcroft, Pope Wehrmacht II (also known as Benedict XVI) and even Osama Bin Laden (as seen on TV) all agree that we are made of cells. Therefore, we see that Cell Theory is not necessarily a “Theory” but rather, it is a “Law.”
Similarly under the protective blanket of science, Evolution follows suit as being authoritative in terms of its classification. Intelligent Design, unfortunately for Mr. Esteban, cannot jump on board the Law wagon since it has no stamp of approval from the scientific community at large – and while its defenders may claim it to be a theory (lower-case “t”) in terms of its conception and justification, it is not a biological Theory with any authenticity.
ID will therefore remain forever as a faith – a round peg trying to get into the square hole of robust information that our state can reasonably sanction in our schools.
Furthermore, Intelligent Design-ers have nothing to lose from disparaging the idea of a scientific Theory. Fortunately for those of us who are not so intelligent, ID’s arguments are based almost entirely on the idea that Evolution is a little “t” theory just like Cookie Monster theory and Big Bird theory.
This claim is semantically wrong because science has influenced language in the capacity to distinguish between natural law Theory and paradigmatic theory. I’m not saying don’t believe your theories, people, just don’t try to bill them off as science.
For more information on Intelligent Design, see also Pasteur’s experiments in “spontaneous generation” and your local televangelist.
I credit the radio show hosted by Dr. Dean Edell on 590 KLBJ for some of the ideas presented in this opinion article.
Hershel Chapin is a third-year Finance and French double major. He may be contacted at [email protected].
