Letter to the editor, Jan 2, 2005

Issue One:  Intelligent Design;  Not validated

Contrary to what is stated by Sen. Rick Santorum...the real violation of academic freedom is requiring someone to teach, as science, something that has not been scientifically validated. No matter how reasonable or appealing a hypothesis is, it should be taught as science only if it has been tested and validated by accepted scientific standards.

Public opinion is not a measure of scientific validity, nor is personal endorsement. In fact, such opinions are often wrong. After all, at one time almost everyone, including prestigious scholars and politicians, believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. Believing this did not make it scientifically correct.

To date, the intelligent design hypothesis has not been scientifically tested and validated, although the idea in various forms has been around since at least the 19th century. If intelligent design is validated to the same degree that evolution has been validated, then -- and only then -- can it be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

J. Matthew Simon, Point Breeze

Editor's note [from Post Gazette]: The writer is distinguished professor of chemistry at Point Park University.

Letter to the editor, Jan 1. 2005

Real disinformation

It is deplorable that Sen. Rick Santorum is resorting to disinformation in his supports of the Dover Area School District. He argues that "intelligent design" is different from creationism. Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap suit! The public needs to be warned of pseudo-science and demagogy and I urge the readers to get more information from the National Center for Science Education...

The senator also argues that evolution should be "open to scrutiny" and should be "questioned." Indeed, that is the basis of the scientific method and that is the problem of introducing religion into science class. Science flourishes by peer review and continuous scrutiny. Religion doesn't.

Furthermore, in science, a theory does not mean guesses or hunches. Science and technology as we know them today are built on a number of theories put forward by scientists (including Newton and Einstein) to systematically and methodically explain certain phenomena.

More important, the efforts by religious groups and misguided politicians to undermine teaching evolution are irresponsible. Evolution is the cornerstone of biomedical sciences and "intelligent design" is in conflict not only with natural selection, but also with other vital disciplines of science like geology, anthropology, physics and astronomy, to name a few. Evolution is a well-founded science, the beginnings of which were Darwin's writings that are based on five years of field work done all over the world followed by about 20 years of scientific examination of the collected material.

Burhan Gharaibeh, Squirrel Hill

The writer has a Ph.D. in biological sciences.

Letter to the editor, Dec 28, 2004

Sen. Santorum seems to misunderstand scientific theory

I was surprised to read the Dec. 25 Weekend Perspectives piece by our junior senator, Rick Santorum ("Academic Freedom at Stake: Present the Full Range of Scientific Views on Evolution Theory"). He argues that the religious theory called intelligent design should be taught in the public schools and cites a York County school district for its courage in challenging evolutionary theory. He also claims that this is an issue of academic freedom.

Mr. Santorum seems to lack an understanding of what a scientific theory means. The key points of any scientific theory are that it be testable and also be falsifiable. Intelligent design says that the natural world is too complex to have evolved on its own and thus benefited from some external design. The crux of at least one of the arguments in intelligent design is that if you remove parts of the whole then it becomes useless (e.g., take a single gear out of a watch and it is no longer useful). This idea was argued more than 200 years ago by William Paley and refuted by many since then.

The problem with intelligent design as a scientific theory is that it is not falsifiable or testable. Thus, like any other religious construct, belief in it is a matter of faith. And faith should be kept in the family and the church. Evolution is a constantly changing (dare I say evolving) theory that has been tested and verified again and again.

Intelligent design, as this newspaper pointed out, is just religion cloaked in scientific language and belongs in our educational system no more than astrology and other matters of faith.

BARD ERMENTROUT, O'Hara

Editor's note [from Post Gazette]: The writer is University Professor of Computational Biology at the University of Pittsburgh.

Opinion Column,  Dec 25, 2004

"Academic Freedom at Stake: Present the full range of scientific views on evolution theory"

by Sen. Rick Santorum

The recent legal dispute involving the Dover Area School District over intelligent design should not be characterized as a debate between evolution and creationism. Creationism is based on the Genesis creation account, usually including the creation of the Earth by a biblical God a few thousand years ago. In contrast, the theory of intelligent design claims that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as random mutation and natural selection, and it makes scientific arguments to back that up.

A recent Post-Gazette editorial was completely inaccurate in describing the York County district's decision regarding the teaching of evolution and indulges in rhetoric instead of engaging in a reasoned debate on the issues. The fact is that the Dover Area School District will continue to teach evolution and prohibit the teaching of intelligent design, creationism or the presentation of any religious beliefs. The school board simply has presented a balanced curriculum that makes students aware of the controversies surrounding evolution.

Let me be clear: I firmly believe that creationism should not be taught in public schools. Proponents of intelligent design theory believe that our public schools should teach our children more about evolution, including a candid assessment of the theory's unresolved difficulties. Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to scrutiny, not as sacred dogma that cannot be questioned.

But is there a real scientific dispute? Absolutely. Recently, over 300 scientists, including scholars from Yale, Princeton, MIT and the Smithsonian, signed a public statement declaring that they were "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" and encouraging "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory."

Because there is a real scientific dispute, federal education policy calls on schools to "teach the controversy." In 2001, I offered report language ultimately attached to the No Child Left Behind Act that states, "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

Constitutional law also allows the teaching of alternative scientific theories in the classroom. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Edwards v. Aguillard that "we do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught."...

I commend the Dover Area School District for taking a stand and refusing to ignore the controversy.

Sen. Rick Santorum

Read more at Philadelphia Inquirer Eisner column:  Schools Lose Faith in Evolution  Nov 19, 2004