Letter to the Editor: Intelligent science

To the Editor:

I agree with the overall sentiment of Andrew Rennekamp's column ("Intelligent Debate," DP, 9/27/05) that only a balanced and open debate will resolve the matter concerning "Intelligent Design" and its place in the science classroom. However, Mr. Rennekamp successfully illustrates the fundamental problem at the core of this controversy -- a misunderstanding of what "science" is.

Science is a methodology for achieving understanding, predicated on observation, experimentation, inference and non-arbitrary thinking. In scientific practice, a "theory" is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses. Scientific theories are fallible by definition; they are always subject to scrutiny and reevaluation by scientists, via the scientific method.

However, scientific theory should never be confused with "conjecture," as is seemingly common in the debate at hand. Using the scientific method, we can study the past via inference based on empirical information and with some degree of certainty (ie: geology, paleontology, anthropology, forensics), as well as look forward with some degree of confidence (ie: weather prediction, medicine).

In the same way that the theory of gravity has withstood persistent scrutiny and experimentation, the theory of evolution stands as one of the most strongly supported theories found in all of science.

Using the criteria described above, there is no reason for any trained scientist to ascribe the label "theory" to the conjectures of "Intelligent Design" proponents, nor allow it in the science classroom.

There are no testable hypotheses that can be proposed. No inferences can be made on empirical evidence. No facts. No laws. Citing a "higher being" as the cause for the variation between species is abstract and arbitrary. While the concept of "Intelligent Design" massages our society's religious beliefs and yearning to understand and ascribe meaning to our lives, it is not suitable for the science classroom as a "theory."

If we're going to talk about "Intelligent Design," let's be sure to compare "apples to apples." Only then can the debate be fair and honest.

Kushol Gupta

The author is a postdoctoral Fellow in Penn's

Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.