Reader Christian Toth  writes us about challenges to Darwin:

This is a reply to "Why Intelligent Design Theory Ought to Be Taught" by Jonah Avriel Cohen as it appeared on 8/25/05.  

I would like to thank Prof. Cohen for his thoughtful article, with which I agree.

I'd also like to clarify what he seems to imply without stating directly: that Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science setting.

In the heated в£њdebateв£ќ between science and religion, both sides seem to make things more complicated than they need to be.  Some scientists claim that religion, because it incorporates beliefs that can't be proven rationally, has no place in an enlightened society.  Some religious believers claim that evolution, because it hasn't yet connected all the dots during its brief existence as a theory, is bad science. 

This explains the appeal of Intelligent Design Theory, which seeks to accommodate both systems.  But this accommodation can't work for as long as the basis of ID Theory is merely attacks against evolution — for two reasons. 

In the first place, evolution, for all the gaps it has yet to fill in, is a very strong theory.  ID's attacks can (and often do) succeed only rhetorically.  Considered seriously and rationally, evolution simply holds up. 

In the second place, insofar as I've read, ID Theory doesn't contain any positive, scientifically testable claims.  Instead it argues from the negative standpoint, evolution couldn't have done this.  There's no theory there at all, really. The Aristotelian view of the solar system, for example, wasn't disproved by arguments from the negative; it was replaced by another view that tested better. 

A religion is a belief system that deals —— at least partly —— with non—rational matters lying outside of the scope of the scientific method.  But science must build on experimentation and observation.  Until someone comes up with a test to prove or disprove the existence of a Designer, ID Theory can't claim to be science.  Rather it should stand or fall for what it is, an interesting and provocative idea.  Perhaps as Prof. Cohen suggests, it could enhance a philosophical discussion including Kant, Hume, and Kierkegaard.

It does not belong in a science classroom.

8 30 05

UPDATE: Reader John Light responds:

Christian Toth's comments on Intelligent Design were incomplete.  The General Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory.  It cannot and has not been observed and cannot be tested.  As such, if the General Theory of Evolution has a place in the classroom, then so does Intelligent Design.  Now we can observe, to a minor degree, the Specific Theory of Evolution as it relates to the adaptation of a species to different environments but we cannot observe or test the evolution of one species into a different species of a higher order or lesser one for that matter.