Letter: Intelligent design simply isn’t science

Friday, Nov. 18, 2005 | 7:24 a.m.

Raymond LeBoeuf's Nov. 16 letter, "Sun should further explore man's origins," deserves an answer. There are probably many readers who wonder why intelligent design is not given even-handed consideration with Darwin's theory of evolution by scientists and teachers. The answer is simple and conclusive -- though it requires some study and effort to learn the basic facts and ideas involved in the two viewpoints.

A letter to the editor does not provide the space to describe and teach all the observations, experiments, biology, genetics and repetitions of studies and ideas that compose the Darwinian theory. Suffice it to say that the work being done in this field is overwhelmingly supported and accepted by all science and is, indeed, the basis for most biological medical activity in the world today.

Intelligent design is not a religion. Its proponents have bent over backward to proclaim that it is not identifiable with any god, goddess, extraterrestrial or divinity of any sort. The problem is that they cannot identify it at all. The intelligent designer could be this, that or the other thing with no possible means of resolution and clarity.

If something is, by its very nature unable to be identified, classified and understood, however approached and studied, then it cannot be scientific. Science is classification, understanding and knowledge. Intelligent design is a thought process, an idea that cannot be proven or disproved -- not even proximately described.

If intelligent design finds its way into school curriculum it must be done with a full understanding of where it came from, what it means and how it fits with the scientific world view. It could be taught in a philosophy class or possibly a political science class -- but not as a biological science.

Malcolm Crawford

Las Vegas