Intelligent Design is not science

Editor,

I agree with Marci Watson that science and faith are not mutually exclusive, but am troubled by some of her other statements.

Yes, the "Theory of Evolution" is by definition a "theory," but it has been shown to explain a great many facts. Yes, Darwin did not have it all right, but he established a foundation upon which others could build and are still building, still uncovering more "facts."

As to Thermodynamics, it's a subject I used extensively in my research and a course I taught for many years. However, I'm not quite sure I understand her remarks.

If correctly applied, Thermo certainly does not refute evolutionary theory. It does suggest that the whole universe will eventually run down — but that's another subject.

As to the fossil record, I'm getting well outside my area of expertise.

But from my readings I have a the strong impression that there are abundant evolutionary links, remarkable discoveries being made every day showing all the many genes we share with other animals, even with microbes.

As to "Intelligent Design," or ID, I can do no better than quote from a recent letter to the editor in Science: "Even a first year engineering student would be embarrassed to have designed your lower back with the extreme bend that allows you to stand erect even though your pelvis slants forward for knuckle-dragging like all our near relatives.

You probably have had braces or wisdom teeth extracted because there are too many teeth for the size of your mouth. Then there are your sinuses, with a flawed drainage system that would provoke laughter from a plumber. Yet evolution provides a ready and rational explanation for all these design failures; by progressive changes into an erect posture, by shortening of a mammalian muzzle into a face, and by expansion of our large brains to crowd the facial bones."

The letter concludes with a tongue-in-cheek observation that ID seems to stand for Incompetent Design. It also states that ID is not science but religion and should be taught as such. I strong concur.

A subject that definitely should be taught more in school is History. Both ancient and modern history are replete with examples of the tragic consequence of mixing religion with education and with government. Actually, one need look no further than the daily newspaper.

Richard J. Rosa

Polson