Wasteful Ways

Mayr Malool wrote a beautiful letter on evolution and Intelligent Design. This was followed with a thoughtful written letter by Bob Glavey who raised good points. Both these letters are topical given the proposed school board resolution on evolution.

I am concerned about the misunderstandings surrounding the scientific theory. The word "theory" is confusing this important debate because it means something different in the context of science. Here, a theory must satisfy three criteria: it must explain the outcomes of many experiments, it must be tested, and it must be predictive. Newton's Theory of Gravity, for example, predicts how quickly an object will fall to the earth.

Evolution is important to certain branches of the life sciences, notably wildlife and fisheries management, agriculture and medicine. It has been heavily tested and is more recently supported with a vast library of DNA record; this record is a living link to life in the distant past and is immeasurably informative.

The theory of evolution explains a huge body of evidence, and it is predictive. Using the theory of evolution, scientists have warned about the folly of overusing antibiotics because such a practice leads to the selection of bacteria that are resistant to the overused antibiotics. Sure enough, after years of warnings about this danger, we now face several dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria.

You may be surprised that theories are not necessarily true. Newton's theory of gravity contends that masses attract each other. This is wrong, and the Theory of Gravity cannot be used by the aerospace industry. For those advanced applications, scientists turn instead to Einstein's theories. The latter advanced that masses distort the space time continuum which in turn affects the motion of other masses.

However, Newton's Theory of Gravity is still taught and used because is quite useful here on earth, it is accurate enough for most of our needs and a lot simpler to work with than Einstein's theories! Similarly, whether you believe the Theory of Evolution or not, it sure is useful.

Intelligent Design is a "theory" in the English language, but it is not yet a "scientific theory." For the concept of Intelligent Design to attain the rank of scientific theory, it needs to be tested and to be predictive. I fear obtaining the required concrete evidence is beyond the power of science. How do we physically measure divine intent? How can we compare outcomes with and without divine intervention? Intelligent Design does not have predictive value other than what is already offered by the Theory of Evolution.

What new insight can Intelligent Design provide, say, in the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria? I wonder if it would, in fact, be presumptuous for us to attempt to quantify God using science; to me this search belongs to another, deeper type of inquiry. In my view, if Intelligent Design is not taught in science class, it is not a snub to faith, it is that Intelligent Design is simply beyond the scope of science.

In the end, the Theory of Evolution, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Newton's Theory of Gravity, quantum mechanics, and all the scientific theories are not just untested ideas, they are in fact the foundation of scientific thought.

Louise Laferriere
Ph.D. Plant Pathology
Sebring