This is why I like Jay Ingram...

The article speaks for itself. I've added relevant links for those who wish to dig further.

Intelligent design a difficult foe
For many, evolution theory hard to grasp
May 20, 2006. 01:00 AM
JAY INGRAM


Scientists are absolutely correct to argue that intelligent design — the claim that a designer, not evolution, created life on Earth — is not science and does not belong in science classrooms. But it might come as a surprise to many of them that simply saying so isn't enough.

First, to understand why intelligent design isn't science, you do have to know something about what science is.

Scientists constantly test their theories, trying to poke holes in them. They perform observations and/or experiments to do that. If their preconceptions are not supported by what they see, detect or calculate, they are discarded.

Darwin's theory of evolution has been subjected to more than a century's worth of testing. Not once has a fundamental prediction made by the theory been shown to be incorrect.

It's true that the story of life on Earth is still incomplete, something that ID proponents (and the creationists before them) have seized on by arguing that, for instance, there are no fossil forms that show transitions from one species to another. But such claims are not true.

Transitions between land animals and whales, fish and four-legged terrestrials have been found. There are still gaps, but the point is that there are no new fossils that disprove Darwin.

Proponents of intelligent design, on the other hand, do no experiments. They have promised them in the past, but so far, nothing. Instead, they simply criticize evolution. So, they're talking about science but they're not doing any. Science is about doing something. ID should not be taught in science classes because it isn't science.

That all seems pretty straightforward. So why does ID have so much traction in the United States?

Two interesting takes on this have been published in the last few days. One is an article in the journal Public Library of Science Biology about the work of Jon Miller at Northwestern University medical school.

Miller has been measuring scientific literacy over the past 30 years. In the United States and Canada, that literacy is appallingly low. No more than about 15 per cent of the general public can read and understand a science article in Time magazine. To his mind, the acceptance of intelligent design is directly related to the strength of the religious right in the U.S.

How about these examples: One out of every three Americans thinks evolution is "definitely false;" only about one out of seven is convinced it's true. In a ranking of 34 countries whose adults accept evolution, the United States stands 33rd. (Turkey is 34th.) Perhaps the most extraordinary claim made by Miller is that the United States is the only country in the world where a political party wants ID taught in schools.

With that background, it should have come as no surprise to scientists that countering the appeal of intelligent design was going to be difficult. Yet, many seemed surprised when that turned out to be the case.

Scott Lilienfeld, a psychologist at Emory University in Atlanta, understands why. In an article in this month's Skeptical Inquirer, Lilienfeld argues that the problem with scientists is that they expect the general public to be sensible about the whole issue and choose evolution.

But should they be? There is, of course, the issue of religion, as I just mentioned. But what about those who are on the fence, people who might be churchgoers but are not virulently anti-evolution? Is evolution the "common sense" explanation for the glorious diversity of life? No, it is not.

Evolution is hard to grasp. It only makes sense if you're willing to give it millions of years, and if you can grasp the idea that the most infinitesimal changes in genes can, when captured by natural selection, actually create marvellous organs, like the eye, and marvellous species, from fruit flies to blue whales.

Lilienfeld argues that intuition, so helpful in much of life, is a bad guide to accuracy in this case. The Earth does look flat; it isn't. The sun appears to revolve around the Earth; it doesn't. Living things appear to have been designed by someone (or Someone); they aren't.

Lilienfeld contends that the solution is to improve the teaching of science in school, to impress upon students that intuition can be wrong, and that the scientific approach is one way of ensuring that doesn't happen.

Of course, if intelligent design is part of that science education, so much for the chances of introducing thinking.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Ingram hosts Daily Planet on the Discovery Channel.

*article shamelessly purloined from the Toronto Star.