I am writing in response to the submission by David Carreon
titled “Scientists should weigh intelligent design on its
scientific merits” (Oct. 11). I, and the rest of the UCLA
community, should be appalled at the fact that a bioengineering
student could so blatantly misconstrue the purpose of science and
so zealously encourage the stymieing of the very field he is
currently studying.
Science is nothing more than empirical observations, tested
hypotheses and formulated theories of how things work and why. The
scientific method is not about absolute truths or 100 percent
assurance; the main essence of science is constant revision and
self-editing.
Intelligent design is based on one absolute supposition ““
the existence of an intelligent designer. I doubt any proponent of
intelligent design theory would ever refute this creator’s
existence, or even design a test that could potentially do so.
There could be fire-breathing clowns in the sky controlling our
every move like puppets, but that doesn’t mean we should
teach this to our future generations unless we have some reason to
do so.
Carreon concludes his submission, “If intelligent design
is wrong, why don’t you look at the theory and defeat it as
you would any other flawed scientific proposition? Intelligent
design scientists make predictions and inferences that can be
tested. Why don’t you discuss or even acknowledge these, and
then prove them wrong?”
A theory can never be “defeated” if it has yet to
enter the metaphorical competition.
Intelligent design proponents do not make predictions, do not
contribute to academia and do not follow scientific protocol, and I
have never come across any documentation of intelligent design
“inferences that can be tested.”
The reason scientists don’t discuss intelligent design
except in debate is because it lies outside the realm of science
and reasoning and instead within the realm of philosophy, theology
and faith. Nothing can ever be proven or disproven in science; it
can only be supported one way or another. You know that, David.
Negligence of educational and scientific expectations and
lackluster regard to reasoning are unwelcome to the public
education system and mainstream scientific field.
Darwin, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton didn’t argue and
shove their way in; they earned their way in through research,
experimentation and supportable indications for their
hypotheses.
An intelligent design supporter’s best bet is retreating
to the drawing board, rather than ranting in the Daily Bruin.
Science is obligated to further only the theories that are
justified in their rationale and defended through
experimentation.
We live in a dynamic, ever-changing society, and it is up to us
to demand the most accurate and knowledgeable education possible
for our youths. We cannot let intelligent design make us lose sight
of these pluralistic goals and the value we place on our human
understanding.
Shinzaki is a first-year computer science and engineering
student.