Definition of science shouldn’t be rewritten

It dawned on me that intelligence is lacking in those supporting intelligent design being… It dawned on me that intelligence is lacking in those supporting intelligent design being taught in science classes.

I remember my first day in science class. I learned that theories become proven through a step-by-step process known as the scientific method. Science solves problems and creates rational solutions.

Evolution has been shown through substantial evidence. It can be tested through this method. Meanwhile, one must admit that intelligent design in no way, shape or form has been or can be tested.

I do not claim to have high academic credentials when it comes to science. However, I can easily figure out when a supposed scientific argument isn’t one. Most issues are not black and white. This one is. There is no basis to teach intelligent design in science classes. Despite this, there are still folks out there who see it differently.

Those who support intelligent design suppose that, hey if we can’t find the answer then we’ll just throw something down. I say, what we can’t explain yet should be left blank for future generations to figure out. We should not just find false or skeptical information on topics we don’t know about and plug them in to our science books.

It is outrageous that intelligent design or any creationist theories would get taught in a classroom.

By no means do I intend an attack on religion. If schools want to compare theologies and discuss creationist theories in a comparative style, then I say go for it. Just do this in theology classes, not science ones.

I do not oppose the reasoning behind intelligent design. For the most part, it makes sense. No one can explain how the universe was formed. Most of us believe in a higher power. Therefore, those that believe in a higher power think that that this higher power created the universe and planned everything intelligently. Those thoughts deserve the utmost respect. But, it all simply does not matter if there’s no scientific backing!

Two rectangular states, Pennsylvania and Kansas, find themselves on the opposite sides of the issue.

In Dover, Pa., angry citizens outright rejected intelligent design being taught in schools. Several school board members initiated a policy favoring intelligent design. They required high school freshmen to listen to a statement about intelligent design before being taught about evolution in their biology classes. They did see resistance, with eight lawsuits from residents in the town. This past week, it brought warmth to my heart that all the board members, when up for re-election, were booted from office.

On a related note, Pat Robertson told Dover’s population that if there’s a disaster in their area, they shouldn’t look to God.

Meanwhile, Kansas’ Board of Education voted 6-4 in favor of changing the definition of science. The measure that they passed declares that science is no longer just the search for natural explanations of phenomena but essentially leaves itself open to other explanations. One board member, Sue Gamble, claims that this is based on making our system into a theocracy.

I’m surprised Mr. Robertson hasn’t told Kansas’ residents they shouldn’t bother worrying about tornadoes anymore.

The state of Kansas has set a horrible precedent, not just for the rest of the United States, but for the rest of the world. We can’t begin teaching principles with absolutely no evidence. Just because we don’t know something, we can’t change the definition of science so we can just automatically attribute the unknown to a higher power.

Of course at one point everyone thought the earth was flat and was the center of the universe – which science showed was false. Teaching intelligent design will forcibly turn the clocks back. Students will not gain an education; they will acquire brainless knowledge and an inability to figure out the unknown.

I just want to thank the residents of Dover in helping the state of Pennsylvania. At least they have the wisdom to reject teaching intelligent design in science classes.

I’d also like to thank Pat Robertson and other religious zealots. Thanks for helping me show that intelligent design forms itself along the basis of religion – not science.

Do Scott’s columns need some intelligent design? Let him know at sdn2@pitt.edu.