‘Intelligent design’

'œThe God vs. Darwin debate' has reached the White House, said Cathy Young in The Boston Globe. After losing the legal battle to teach the biblical story of Creation in public schools, conservative Christians are back with a clever reformulation of creationism called 'œintelligent design.' The universe is too complex, this theory's proponents argue, to be explained purely by chance mutation and natural selection. The cosmos—and life—thus stand as powerful evidence of a blueprint laid down by an all-knowing prime mover. Intelligent design has become a flash point around the country, with 25 states and dozens of school districts having debated the merits of teaching it. Last week, President Bush declared that they should. 'œBoth sides ought to be properly taught,' he told reporters, 'œso people can understand what the debate is about.'

Sounds perfectly reasonable—except, of course, to the 'œsecular left,' said Peter Wood in National Review Online. Liberals are outraged that Bush isn't genuflecting at the 'œunquestionable' altar of Darwinism. But he's right to resist. Evolution explains part of the process of how life arose on Earth, but it is stumped by the biggest questions. How did inanimate proteins floating in the primordial soup organize themselves into living creatures? Why did our human ancestors appear 'œabruptly on the scene about 150,000 years ago,' with intelligence and toolmaking abilities not seen in previous hominids? If Darwinians really had faith in their own theory, said Kathleen Parker in the Orlando Sentinel, they wouldn't be afraid to have it tested against intelligent design. As Bush pointed out, the whole point of education 'œis to expose people to different schools of thought.'

Fine—but that discussion should take place in philosophy class, said The Washington Post in an editorial. Intelligent design doesn't belong in biology classes, for the simple reason that it isn't science. Evolution may not answer every question, said Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, but it's based on huge mounds of fossil and biological evidence, and on a process that has been observed in real time, in the real world. It is among 'œthe most durable theories in all of science.' Intelligent design, by contrast, relies upon supernatural explanations—and thus cannot be tested or disproved.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

No wonder Bush is a fan of it, then, said the San Jose Mercury News in an editorial. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no understanding of—or respect for—science. This is a man who has insisted, against all scientific evidence, that greenhouse gases do not contribute to global warming. He's defied all the experts in claiming that 22 existing stem-cell lines can satisfy the needs of medical researchers. Given a choice, said Jonathan Chait in the Los Angeles Times, Bush always opts for belief over reason. 'œFacts don't matter to him. What matters is how he feels.'

Michael Shermer

Times

The Philadelphia Inquirer