The Observer, December 7, 2007
Volume XL, Issue 13
Intelligent Design was unfairly criticized
To the Editor:
I refuse to believe that my existence is random, an act of chance. I was disturbed to see Tulsi Roy's short synopsis of Stein's upcoming documentary [Nov. 30] turn into a bash against supposed "religiously and politically motivated" believers of Intelligent Design.
First, I'd like to point out that teaching Intelligent Design would not violate the First Amendment; this thinking results from falsely equating Creationism with Intelligent Design. The two are clearly different; I won't expound upon the differences here.
Intelligent Design is a theory regarding the origins of life, just like evolution, creationism, the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever else you choose to believe in are theories. The fact is, evolution is still "just a theory," as Roy ironically puts it herself, although she tries to present evolution as fact and make readers who think otherwise feel stupid.
Many people, including Roy, claim that ID is not a valid 'scientific theory' because it doesn't make predictions or produce data. Perhaps Roy needs to pick up a book herself; in over 20 definitions for "theory" that I've checked, "testable" doesn't appear as a qualification.
Deciding to teach only one version regarding the origin of life is doing students everywhere a great disservice. Students in science classrooms worldwide should be reminded that other beliefs exist, and that they should decide for themselves what they want to believe.
I was told that in the scientific world, a theory cannot be proven until it has discounted every single other possibility, and also that something cannot be false unless it has been definitively proven to be false. Since evolution (admittedly) cannot explain everything, and nobody can prove that ID didn't occur, I'd say that the two theories are on pretty equal footing. I guess that makes evolution as much "pseudoscientific drivel" as Roy says Intelligent Design is. At least I'm on the 'Intelligent' side.
Throughout her article Roy unfairly generalizes the proponents of ID, saying that they are too "unimaginative" to use scientific method and that they refuse to acknowledge scientific "authority" in formulating their beliefs. A university atmosphere like Case shouldn't be a place where ideas are scoffed at and people are accused of ignorance for not jumping on the evolution bandwagon. Friendly discussion and debate should be encouraged, and people of all beliefs granted respect.
Here's a final thought, for believers in evolution and, more specifically, the Big Bang. I'd like to remind us that all of our current laws of the universe can only be applied a fraction of a second after the universe came into existence, when perhaps the size of our newborn universe was tinier than a pea. The point is that nobody can say definitively what happened in that very small period of time. Nothing can even predict what might have occurred.
I say that in that moment I was Intelligently Designed.
For a great read on our improbable existence, I highly recommend the book The Unrandom Universe, by Sigmund Brouwer (Harvest House Publishers, 2002).
Michael Lyrenmann
Undergraduate student
