False science
PROPONENTS OF the intelligent design concept contend that life is so complex and the earth so perfectly positioned to sustain it that a great designer must be responsible. There's not a bit of sound science in their thinking, but proponents have managed to enlist the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in legitimizing these notions. The Smithsonian, a symbol of the federal government's commitment to advancing knowledge, should fend off any more attempts to infiltrate this quasi-religious doctrine into its scientific work.
The trouble started last August when Richard von Sternberg, editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, published an article by Scott C. Meyer, vice president of the Discovery Institute, chief proponent of intelligent design. Meyer contended that the sudden profusion of complex life forms in the Cambrian era, about 500 million years ago, could not be explained by evolution.
The article does not make much of a scientific argument. The ''Cambrian explosion," as it's called, lasted millions of years, plenty of time for evolution to work. Evolution has been a mainstay of the biological sciences since Charles Darwin first propounded the theory in 1859 because it has consistently provided convincing explanations of natural phenomena. Darwin's theory may not yet completely explain the Cambrian explosion, but that does not invalidate evolution -- it merely invites further research. Intelligent design, on the other hand, does not advance scientific inquiry. Evolution does not disprove the existence of a god or gods, nor does it bar a belief in intelligent design, as long as it is considered a philosophical concept, not a scientific theory.
Publication of the article caused great controversy among scientists. Sternberg, who was a research fellow at the Museum of Natural History, contends that, because he agreed to publish the article, the museum discriminated against him on religious grounds by denying him research facilities and otherwise making his life uncomfortable. His complaint is now before the US Office of Special Counsel. A museum spokesman denies that any discrimination occurred.
Discrimination is wrong, if it took place, and the complaint ought to be investigated, but, in the meantime, aided by an article on The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the right wing has made the Sternberg case a minor cause celebre. By linking a museum fellow to intelligent design, the Sternberg case gives this unscientific concept a whiff of Smithsonian respectability.
Intelligent design got another museum boost Thursday night when the Discovery Institute hosted an invitation-only showing of ''The Privileged Planet" at the museum. This film contends that the life-sustaining position of Earth in its galaxy suggests the hand of an intelligent designer. The museum was supposed to be a cosponsor of the event in exchange for a payment of $16,000, but it refunded the money and took its name off the program when a furor erupted among scientists.
The push to make intelligent design respectable is part of a campaign to have it taught in public schools alongside evolution. The Discovery Institute is trying to increase the respectability of the theory by attaching it to legitimate scientific enterprises, such as the proceedings of the Biological Society and the Smithsonian.
The Museum of Natural History gets 70 percent of its funding from the federal government, which may explain why it allowed ''The Privileged Planet" to be shown amid the furor over the Sternberg case. Having gotten wind of the Sternberg case, US Representative Mark Souder, Republican of Indiana, is considering holding hearings on the back-and-forth over the film. He has demanded all relevant documents from the museum. As chairman of a subcommittee of the House panel that oversees the Smithsonian, he's within his rights to examine activities of the museum, but he should not use the controversies over von Sternberg and the movie as pretexts to lend the authority of Congress to intelligent design. Congress needs to focus on expanding scientific knowledge in the United States, not on worrying about dead-end, unscientific theories.
Intelligent design has an audience among Americans because many are ignorant of biology. The National Museum of Natural History, as the public face of the biological sciences for the Smithsonian, could help remedy that by mounting exhibits that emphasize the importance and validity of evolution for the study of life on earth. Education ought to separate fake from true science.
