Intelligent design raps at threshold of scientific inquiry

DAVID DeWOLF'S June 11 op-ed "Evolution and dissent" is disturbing to me in two ways.

First, it is troubling that at this late date, a professor of law could think that whether our candidates, vying to be the next president of the United States, believe in evolution or intelligent design is a topic that merits even a second of serious discussion. Clearly, the candidates should be debating the intelligent design of a war that has cost 3,800 American lives, and, according to reliable sources, between 100,000 and 600,000 Iraqi lives.

Second, intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis. It asserts that the reason scientists haven't been able to conclusively prove that our world came about through evolution is that the world is the result of a "guiding spirit." This proposition does not lie in the domain of science. So it is doubly wasteful to discuss it during a presidential debate: The discussion takes time away from the important issue of the war, and asks people without expertise in science to make a statement about a topic that has been falsely framed as a scientific question.
CHARLES FREIFELD, Brookline

SCOT LEHIGH was right on in his June 8 column "Piety on parade."

I would like to offer a suggestion to help all of us voters get through the campaign season leading up to the 2008 election. I would propose legislation that would transfer the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military to the candidates when the issue of faith arises. Religious faith of potential leaders should not play a role in determining public policy. Those who choose to ignore the Constitution and its separation of church and state do so at the peril of all our freedoms.
MARCIA KAUFMAN, Natick

DAVID DeWOLF writes that schools should teach the controversy about evolution. There are many controversies in evolution -- for example, whether two populations can become distinct species when those populations are not geographically isolated from each other -- and discussing them with students is a key part of my job as an educator.

DeWolf, however, fails to distinguish between scientific controversies and nonscientific ones. Intelligent design argues that aspects of the natural world were produced not by natural processes but by a supernatural agent. This is a theory of divine intervention -- creationism shorn of the Old Testament specifics -- and is thus a religious theory, not a scientific one.

So Mr. DeWolf wants me to teach religion in my science classroom.

I'll leave it to writer David Quammen to respond to that suggestion:

"Evolution as described by Charles Darwin is a scientific theory, abundantly reconfirmed, explaining physical phenomena by physical causes. Intelligent design is a faith-based initiative in rhetorical argument. Should we teach [it] in America's public schools? Yes, let's do it -- not as science, but alongside other spiritual beliefs, such as Islam, Zoroastrianism, and the Hindu idea that the Earth rests on Chukwa, the giant turtle."
ANDREW BERRY, Cambridge
The writer teaches evolutionary biology at Harvard University.

I WAS disappointed to see that the Globe published a creationist op-ed in its otherwise outstanding editorial section.

The creationist movement, having suffered a string of humiliating judicial setbacks for three decades, recently hit on the brilliant alternative strategy of ginning up a "controversy" and masquerading as advocates of free speech and open debate. The Discovery Institute, at which DeWolf is a senior fellow, is a well-funded propaganda organization that has been executing this strategy.

The reality is that the "debate" between intelligent design and genuine biology is like the "debate" between homeopathy and medicine, parapsychology and neuroscience, or Holocaust denial and history -- they are victorious if they are given a seat on the debating platform.

It was sad to see the Globe's op-ed page taken in by this ruse.
STEVEN PINKER, Cambridge
The writer is professor of psychology at Harvard University.