Letter: Distinguishing ID from theory and fact

Monday, Nov. 21, 2005 | 10:02 a.m.

After reading the Nov. 16 letter from Raymond LeBoeuf, vice principal of Mountain View Christian Schools, I can only hope that the teachers at his school are not as ignorant about science as he is. Consider the following:

Contrary to Mr. LeBoeuf's assertion, there are no "serious, well-researched scientific studies that support intelligent design," because ID makes no testable claims. The ID "theory" can be boiled down to one simple statement: "We can't explain it, so God must have done it."

Like most non-scientists, Mr. LeBoeuf does not understand the meaning of the term "theory" as it is used in the scientific world. A scientific theory is more than just an educated guess. It is an explanation for observed natural phenomena, one that is well-supported by empirical evidence. ID may be a theory by Mr. LeBoeuf's definition, but not according to any legitimate scientist.

Mr. LeBoeuf also makes the common mistake of referring to evolution as a "theory," which it is not. Evolution is an established fact, one that has been observed directly by scientists. Natural selection, which helps explain how evolution occurs, is a theory, and it has been consistently supported by scientific data, including the fossil record and DNA research.

Finally, Mr. LeBoeuf's comment that "the scientific method demands a witness" would be amusing if he weren't an educator of our community's children. According to him, studies of quarks, gravity and oxygen are not science because they are not "observable." Perhaps it's time for him to put down the ID propaganda and pick up a real science book. He might learn something.

Mark J. Chambers

Las Vegas Editor's note: The writer, who holds a Ph.D. in psychology, is president of Skeptics of Las Vegas, an organization that describes itself as being dedicated to promoting rational and scientific thought.