Intelligent Design is not scientific

Editor:

I am writing in response to Matt Weinstock’s letter (“Science should examine itself,” Nov. 29). Weinstock states that the Kansas State Board of Education is not promoting intelligent design (ID) per se, but simply giving students “a balanced view of evolutionary theory.”

This, of course, will allow for the teaching of ID in the classroom as a “scientific” theory. Naturally, only religiously affiliated individuals (namely Christians) subscribe to ID as “scientific.” The whole “religion in public schools” controversy is avoided by claiming that the “designer” is not necessarily the Judeo-Christian god; it could be anyone or anything (it could be Zeus, for all we know.)

It is argued that since life is so complex and “seemingly impossible to have started on its own,” the only plausible answer is that there is an intelligent designer.

Weinstock stated that “the chance that life came together randomly is unrealistic.” Some argue that such chances are “billions upon billions upon billions to one” that life formed on its own.

That argument backfires. There are billions and billions and billions of stars in the universe. With the given odds and the given number of stars, there’s bound to be a planet with life on it; it’s called statistics. Apparently it does, indeed, take a math major to see the probability.

But if the members of the Kansas State Board of Education want “a balanced view,” let them have it. Legally, they will have to allow every conceivable theory to be taught in the classroom.

The flying spaghetti monster theory and the invisible pink unicorn theory come to mind; they are just as valid and scientific as ID. The Kansas State Board of Education should have no problem embracing such theories.

Mathew Myrup

Junior, Mass Communication