Fact fighting
(In response to Janne Gaub’s March 25 letter, “Critical thinking.”)
People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Thus, I would like to correct some of the errors that Janne Gaub passed along to readers.
Gaub wrote: “Teaching the science of intelligent design (and there is plenty of science behind it, make no mistake about it) is not establishing a state religion.”
Wrong. In reality, there is no science behind intelligent design. Intelligent design basically states: “Life is complex and we can’t explain it. Therefore, God did it.” It makes no predictions, its advocates do not test hypotheses or conduct experiments designed to evaluate it, and it does not explain observed phenomena in terms of natural processes. These are the essential components of science. Intelligent design has none of them. Intelligent design appeals to a supernatural creator. It is therefore religious. Its advocates are conservative Christians. Two plus two equals four.
Gaub wrote: “Evolution is a theory. It has never been proven without a doubt because it cannot be recreated in a laboratory.”
Wrong. Evolution is a fact. It has been re-created in the laboratory many, many times. There is a mountain of evidence from the fossil record of change over time. Species change. Species split into descendant species. These are facts. No sane scientist would dispute them. Natural selection is the theory proposed by Darwin to explain evolution. It has been tested over and over again, and has never been refuted. There is no evidence against it. Zero. Therefore, it represents the best explanation for life’s diversity.
Gaub wrote: “Even Charles Darwin himself never sought to explain anything other than variations within a species.”
Wrong. This statement would come as a huge shock to Darwin, who titled his book “On the Origin of Species.” Surely Gaub is aware of Darwin’s title, so I’ll put it another way: Darwin’s book sought to explain how new species originate, not variations within species. It cannot be stated more simply that that. Gaub’s assertion is absurd.
At the end, Gaub writes: “I am curious as to whether Ms. Rubenstrunk has ever looked at the so-called science of … ‘evolution deniers.’ If she has not, it hardly seems fair to discount it as false and unsupported if she has not even looked at it.” Gaub should heed this advice and learn more about evolution before lecturing others about it.
Jeremiah E. Scott
Graduate student