I am responding to Kellee Usher’s reply in this ongoing debate on intelligent design.
First off, the people who claim that intelligent design has anything to do with science obviously lack a basic, grade-school understanding in what science is.
Science is based on seeing a problem, making observations and conducting tests, then unbiasedly coming up with a conclusion from those observations and tests.
Intelligent design is going in reverse. The conclusion has already been made: God created us. The problem is then finding evidence to support the conclusion. That is not real science.
And if you have to use the Bible to support your claim (like Ms. Usher did), odds are, it’s neither scientific nor without doubt. Fact is, the majority of the scientific community rejects intelligent design, and no reputable scientific organization really embraces the “theory.”
Secondly, I’d say about 70 percent of intelligent design is usually focused on debunking evolution. Some of the contentions are plausible, some aren’t. However, even if 100 percent of the contentions to evolution made by ID supporters were scientifically valid and, beyond a shadow of a doubt, disproved evolution, does that mean creationism has to be true. No. The only thing proved is that evolution is false.
It doesn’t automatically mean that God must have done it. Saying otherwise is a fallacious argument from ignorance as well as a false dilemma, stating one conclusion because one other may (or may not) be false.
Intelligent design, as said many times before by many people, is just a knee-jerk reaction to evolution, using flimsy science and logical fallacy to try to prove a hasty conclusion to validate faith.
Jay Everett’s Jan. 25 response to intelligent design was spot-on. Intelligent design is not science; it’s a political statement made by fearful people. As a scientific-minded person who, obviously, believes more in evolution than creationism, of course my beliefs differ.
But Mr. Everett recognizes evolution as a scientific theory that hasn’t been completely proven, and could very well be disproven through real science in time.
Faith is just that: faith. It is believing or knowing without needing proof or scientific backing made by imperfect people.
Mr. Everett’s understands this as well. I may not believe the same things as he does, but I must express the utmost respect to Mr. Everett for his logical view as well as his faith.
Preston McAllister is a graduate student in computer science.