Let's test 'intelligent design'.

The Religious Right wants to introduce "intelligent design" into the scientific curriculum? ("Weird Science," September Church & State) Are they proposing that it would withstand scrutiny as a scientific theory? Well, then, bring it on!

Evolution IS a theory. It is a very well supported theory, but a theory nevertheless. It has been tested against evidence from many independent avenues of inquiry, and it passes muster in the eyes of virtually all scientists. But, like any theory, there are unresolved questions that make for a less-than-completely-unifying theorem.

This is true to some extent in all of science. We embrace ideas as tentative as the Big Bang, realizing that it is a work-in-progress--one that evolves as our understanding of sub-atomic physics advances. Other ideas are known with greater certainty: the morphology of the earth: is it flat or spherical?

So, it is fair to question, and subject evolution to careful scrutiny. That is the only way to build confidence in its validity. A fairly presented discourse on the subject would work in its favor. After all, no scientific idea is above reproach.

And neither is intelligent design! If we are going to examine it as an alternative to evolution, we must consider at least two avenues of discussion: how "intelligent" is it, and what is the scientific basis for the belief in a "designer'?" The former could investigate the rationality of a universe that is riddled with disease, social problems, and an apparently indifferent environment, given tsunamis and hurricanes. Since talk of a design would be meaningless without a discussion of a designer, a careful, structured investigation into the scientific foundations for a belief in "The Designer" would have to strongly favor its acceptance, or the proposition should be rejected as unsupported.

Since this discussion would be in a science class, references to the Bible or tribal legends or generally accepted myths could not be employed unless their component parts could be independently and rationally substantiated. "Generally Accepted" would not be allowable as a compelling argument. After all, in 1492, the majority held the belief that the earth was flat, but I doubt that it changed shape to suit humanity's religious predilections. It would make for an interesting discussion. If the Religious Right would tolerate it!

You can't have it both ways: It's unreasonable to critique evolution while blithely accepting intelligent design. If they want to dissect evolution, then intelligent design should be similarly scrutinized. Even among the most brainwashed children, there is hope that rationality will prevail over mythology, at least in a few cases.

My guess is that the Religious Right would shudder at the idea that its precious, ethereal beliefs might be subjected to an objective examination. Maybe that would shut them up.

-Bill McGrath

Chandler, Ariz.