Science seeks hard evidence

EDUCATION

Science seeks hard evidence

By Moin Rahman

September 5, 2005

President Bush has weighed in on the debate on evolution vs. intelligent design (ID) by stating,

"Both sides ought to be properly taught … so people can understand what the debate is about."

At this rate, it appears that Bush may even endorse the requirement, which casts doubt on
evolution, stipulated by the school district of Cobb County, Georgia. The district requires that all
biology textbooks should be affixed with a sticker with the following disclaimer on evolution:
"Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be
approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Bush has every right to his opinion, but if he thinks that his opinion, which contradicts the
methods of science, has to be made part of the science curriculum, then, "Crawford, we have a
problem."

Of course, this problem can be resolved in a quid pro quo fashion if the president approves the affixing of stickers to scriptures of various faiths with the following words: "This book contains material on revelation. Religion is a theory, not a fact, regarding the creation of life and matter. This material should be questioned, its miracles challenged, and could be rejected for lack of evidence."

An ironic request like this will remind the president that every issue, including faith, has two sides
to it: That is, those who embrace faith, purely on "faith," without requiring any supporting
evidence, and those who reject faith because it is just a creation myth that was passed on to us
by our ancestors.

It is unscientific for public school boards to require biology textbooks to carry a disclaimer that encourages students to turn a blind eye to the massive amounts of evolutionary evidence, from fossils to genetics. Because this evidence, when explained by the theory of evolution, makes a compelling case for natural selection.

Many school boards across the country are conducting hearings to determine the validity and
veracity of the theory of evolution. These hearings are fundamentally flawed for two reasons: (1)
Questioning a particular theory of science does not occur in school boards, but among scientists
who pursue evidence in the field, conduct experiments in the laboratories and publish findings in
scientifically peer-reviewed journals; (2) Why just pick on the theory of evolution while ignoring
other theories -- such as the theory of relativity, atomic theory, germ theory and heliocentric
theory, among others -- that constitute science?

With regard to the creation of species, the methods of science simply state: Show me either the
evidence for the fingerprints left by the (invisible) intelligent designer or for evolution through
natural selection of random mutations, and I will accept it. And, it has indeed accepted the latter,
which was first proposed by Charles Darwin. In a nutshell, science demands eliciting evidence to
support an explanation (theory) through systematic methods of critical thought and inquiry.

ID conveniently excludes evidence relating to the gradual evolution of species and complex
organs such as the eye through natural selection, and simply concludes that complexity can't
arise without a designer.

If a technologically advanced society places knowledge derived by objective data on par with

supernatural explanations in a science textbook, it will devolve once again into a primitive society.