Still evolving science 1

December 16, 2005

The staggeringly arrogantJattack on intelligent design (ID) by a cabal of zoologists suggests that, like most biologists, few of them have read any modern versions of ID (Opinion, December 9).

Design is not inherently unscientific and is not dependent on a personal god. There is something fundamental to life about which we are unaware; as scientists we are duty bound to go in search of it. But as biologists we are hindered by an education that has indoctrinated us with a god or Darwin-based religion. Merely toJinvoke Karl Popper to dismiss design as unscientific is lazy; philosophy becomes science only if you work at it.

Darwinists portray themselves as paragons of science, but they too need to clean up their act. They should remove the surfeit of metaphor from their arguments and stop peddling fairy tales such as Darwin originated the idea of natural selection; that the famous Huxley-Wilberforce debate happened as they tell it; and that the peppered moth story is an exemplar of good science.

ID should not be taught in schools simply because it has not been through the mill. Neo-Darwinism is the best idea we currently have in biology, but it will inevitably be overtaken by something new. Darwinists can join in the search or maintain their stalling action.

Milton Wainwright
Sheffield University

to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments