Pam McTeer’s Jan. 14 article “ACLU stifles freedom of ideas” raised several questions.
There are really two issues to be considered: the legal issue of separation of church and state and the deeper issue of what constitutes a scientific theory. The courts will ultimately decide on the first, but I am more concerned with the second.
McTeer’s statement that “the theory [Intelligent Design] is at least as scientifically credible, if not more, than Darwin’s theory of evolution” is baffling.
At present, the biological community seems to agree that the theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the complexity and diversity of species. Indeed, it is really the only scientific theory currently enjoying widespread acceptance.
Scientific theories must be based on facts and must have hypotheses and conclusions that are testable by scientific methods.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific theories; they are appeals to something supernatural to explain what we don’t yet understand.
The ancient Greeks used to believe that Apollo dragged the sun across the sky every day behind his chariot; they had not figured out the physics of the solar system. (It took many centuries before mankind figured this out. Sometimes science progresses slowly.)
Intelligent Design may be a theory in the sense that it involves hypotheses and speculation, but it is not a scientific theory.
The courts can rule only on the legal issue, not on the issue of what is or is not science. The latter question is the more significant one.
I only hope that school boards and other education authorities are wise enough to sort it out.
Bruce Ebanks is a professor in the department of mathematics and statistics.