Religion fosters poor science

Teaching intelligent design in schools is an underhanded attempt
to introduce religion into science education. The scientific method
is a process of rigorous and systematic testing of hypotheses, and
it is only after such testing that one speaks of a scientific
theory.

There must be predictions, by any scientific model, that could
be contradicted by experiment or observation.

But intelligent design, which states that a very powerful
“intelligent designer,” acting outside of the natural
laws of science, has been involved in the creation of the universe
and life, is not a falsifiable hypothesis. Proponents of this idea
do not specify who the “intelligent designer” is, but
he or she must at least be nearly omniscient and omnipotent like
God.

Any result of every possible experiment or observation could be
explained by the intervention of an omnipotent being. A
supernatural intervention could have made the universe as we see
it, or it could have made any of the multitude of possible
universes imagined by science fiction writers.

Thus there is no possible result of any experiment or
observation that could falsify the hypothesis.

This makes it bad science. In fact, it is not science at
all.

Proponents of such ideas often state that evolution is just a
theory. This statement is in fact high praise for evolution.

“Just a theory” would also describe Newton’s
laws, which succeeded in explaining the motion of the moon and
planets and led to the prediction of the return of Halley’s
Comet and the discovery of the planet Neptune.

Of course, a scientific theory is never proven to be true
““ Einstein found that Newton’s law of gravity needed to
be modified given general relativity.

This continued testing of theories and the resulting improvement
of our understanding of the universe is the process of science in
action.

In biology, the evolution of modern species by descent with
variation from a common ancestral form is very clear in the body
forms, and the resulting evolutionary tree has been very largely
confirmed by molecular biologists studying the structure of both
proteins and the genes that code for them.

But biological systems are complex, and there are many steps in
the evolutionary story that are still unclear. Intelligent design
would say that these gaps in our understanding are evidence for the
“intelligent designer.”

This kind of evidence for God has a long history in theology,
where it is known as the “God of the gaps.”

In the 19th century people thought that the synthesis of organic
chemicals was impossible without the presence of life. So this was
a gap in our understanding. Now we can make complex organic
molecules in laboratories.

Does this mean that there is less evidence for God? One should
say no, because the “God of gaps” argument is bad
theology.

It is much better to argue that the regularity and
comprehensibility of the universe give evidence for God. As Albert
Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the
world is that it is at all comprehensible.”

The coming decades may see humanity learning how to build
designer microbes specially constructed to perform tasks like
cleaning up oil spills. Would this usurp powers that should be left
to God, or is it just the use of tools that has always spurred
human progress?

So the question for voters and politicians is whether we should
teach intelligent design and thus deliberately damage the
intellectual capabilities of students in the U.S., as was done to
the lower classes in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New
World,” or whether we should maximize our potential for
progress by providing the best education possible.

We should remember that China would be happy to replace the U.S.
as the scientific leader of the world.

Wright is a professor in the department of astronomy and
astrophysics.