The Indianapolis Star reported Nov. 4 that Indiana has joined the "intelligent design" (ID) debate, though Gov. Mitch Daniels is hesitant to sign any bill relating to the matter for now.
ID is the concept that the complexity of the world indicates it was created by a supernatural designer, and the main conflict is over teaching of ID as an alternative to evolutionary theory.
But across the Internet, the "science" of the ID debate has been ignored. Instead, most Web sites claim that ID is not a scientific theory - that it is junk science and does not constitute serious research. The scientific community's responses generally range from the above pigeonholes to dismissal and even, in some cases, authoritarian suppression of the concept.
In August, a situation emerged from the Smithsonian Institute: The editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Richard Sternberg, came under harsh criticism for publishing a paper by Stephen Meyer that questioned several traditional Darwinist assumptions about biology and was sympathetic toward ID. Many in the scientific community expressed immediate outrage not - as one would expect - at the content of the paper, but rather that a peer-reviewed scientific journal would even print such an article. Sternberg lost his position as editor and was subjected to an inquisition into his political and religious beliefs. He has since filed a case alleging discrimination on the grounds of his "perceived" religion.
Steinberg's critics say the paper should not have even been published because ID is "unscientific by definition," as the American Association for the Advancement of Science has stated.
Meyer noted that, "Rather than critique the paper on scientific merits, they appeal to a doctrinal statement," suggesting that such action demonstrated the scientific community's insecurity. The "science" has again been avoided.
I was also surprised by the work of the Institute for Creation Research, one of the main supporters of ID. What I found was a far cry from what had been portrayed by ID opponents.
An article on the institute's Web site, "Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality" by Charles McCombs, deals with the concept of "handedness" in microbiology, which states that individual molecules that appear identical can be mirror-image opposites - like your left and right hands.
McCombs, who has a doctorate in organic chemistry, explains the concept of chirality, which he says argues against theories of "random chance evolution." McCombs, like other ICR scientists, draws upon research from many different scientific disciplines. Such work does not seem to be junk science and would certainly constitute the serious research supposedly absent from ID.
Beyond the scientific community, responses to ID generally take the form of ad hominem attacks on its supporters and impugning their motives, claiming ID is only about injecting creationism into schools. ID supporters note that who has done the designing is irrelevant to the question of whether or not design is a possible answer - but such attacks still seem to be the norm.
If the motives of ID supporters really have any bearing, the reverse must be true: The motives of evolutionary theory's supporters should be questioned as well. Do many of them hate religion, as has been suggested by critics? Are they anti-creationism and anti-God, rather than pro-science? Or are they pro-science because they are anti-God?
Is the debate even about science? If so, why the stonewalling?
As the ID debate moves across the country and into our fair state, I am reminded of the Scopes "Monkey" Trial of the early 20th century.
One certainly has to wonder if science is at the core of this controversy.
Write to Andrew at
apbalke@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
