As both a PhD student in biochemistry and an avid reader of letters to the editor, I have been concerned to note that many people on both sides of the intelligent design debate seem to have an incomplete or overly expansive idea of what science can and cannot do.
– Issue No. 1: Science is limited to studying theories that can be tested. It is improper and non-scientific for a science textbook or teacher to express support for an idea that cannot be tested, for such an idea is outside the realm of science. I have been unable to think of an experiment that could test for the presence or absence of an intelligent designer, and I have been unable to find such a proposal in anyone else’s work.
– Issue No. 2: From what I have read of intelligent design literature, the argument essentially boils down to this: Certain aspects of life are so complex that we cannot understand how they could have evolved; therefore, they must not have evolved. This attitude–if we don’t understand it now, we never can–is inherently unscientific. Science is a cumulative process. The greatest honor a scientist can hope for is to have his or her work inspire new work by others, and new minds and new technology are constantly increasing our ability to test ideas. It is insulting to future generations to assume that our current understanding of any biological question is the limit of mankind’s eventual understanding.
I would respectfully ask that people keep these points in mind, and refrain from expecting science to venture in the realms of unsubstantiated speculation, or from limiting the idea of “science” to “science at this point in time.”
