Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Regarding Jim Shen’s article “”Controversial Origins”” on Feb. 26 and Jeremiah Runyan’s and Eddie Herrera’s subsequent letters to the editor: When Albert Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity in 1915, it was met with enormous resistance and controversy. Yet he did not lobby legislators to enact laws to force its teaching into classrooms or start a public relations campaign to influence the public debate. He presented his ideas in public where their validity could be challenged by experiments. It wasn’t until 1959 that technology improved enough to show that Einstein’s predictions offer our best understanding of the universe.

Despite Runyan’s and Herrera’s passionate defense of intelligent design, the theory has not yielded any empirical evidence that supports it or that directly challenges evolution. There is a fundamental distinction between the search for intelligent design in archaeology, which involves the study of physical remains left behind by ancient human cultures (human design), and the search for the supernatural in explaining the origin of man. Runyan and Herrera lack an understanding of the scientific process. ID proposes that there are biological systems in nature that are “”irreducibly complex,”” and therefore the only plausible explanation is the presence of an intelligent agent.

Simply saying something appears too complicated to be the product of evolution does not prove the alternative hypothesis of ID. If ID is truly hypothesis-driven and testable, then its supporters must provide evidence for the intelligent agent and its effects on the natural world. Supporters have not even proposed experiments that directly test their hypothesis, let alone provide evidence.

ID also proposes that the fossil record does not have enough intermediate species. This claim is continuously being refuted by paleontologists uncovering new species, including the recent and notable discovery of a transitional fish fossil from the late Devonian age (approximately 375 million years ago) which has fins and scales, but also a neck and the precursors to modern shoulders, wrists and elbows (Nature, April 6, 2006).

The more we discover about nature, the more evolution fits the data. Herrera’s definition of science is wrong: Science is not a belief system and scientists do not “”believe in evolution.”” We accept or reject theories based on empirical evidence.

Theories are constantly revised as new evidence is produced, and often times scratched entirely when they can no longer explain it. ID as an explanation for our origins is a belief system, as Herrera notes, because it requires faith that God shaped the process. These are beliefs that are neither provable nor testable, and therefore not science.

Scientists look at a problem and say, “”We don’t know what the answer is yet, but if we ask the right questions and do the right experiments, maybe we will some day.”” ID looks at the same questions and says, “”We don’t have an answer for this yet, so it must be the work of an undetectable intelligent agent.””

I would hate to think we are trading our pioneering spirit of discovery in favor of giving up because things seem too complicated or because we’re too impatient for answers.

– Aaron S. Parker

Graduate Student

Division of Biological Sciences

More to Discover
Donate to The UCSD Guardian
$200
$500
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists at University of California, San Diego. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment, keep printing our papers, and cover our annual website hosting costs.

Donate to The UCSD Guardian
$200
$500
Contributed
Our Goal