Spring Break
A response to Levy and Smith
Issue date: 4/12/07 Section: Opinion
Sean Carroll, one of the leading geneticists in the world, and a number of other evolutionary biologists have recently discovered, using the scientific method, one of the great evolutionary explanations in biology. After many years of tedious hard work and study, these scientists have accumulated massive evidence through analyses of DNA found in living species that explains in rational material terms the wonders of the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion, as Dr. Carroll so elegantly phrased it, was the " 'Big Bang' of animal evolution."
The Discovery Institute still believes that the Cambrian Explosion occurred because an intelligent designer directly interceded in the biology of the planet and made it happen by divine intervention. Dr. Carroll has explained it in the useful, scientific terms of natural selection without any magic tricks or supernatural intervention. Which description is more useful? Dr. Carroll's description even helps us understand more deeply certain developmental defects (birth defects) that happen in our own human species. I ask again, which description is more useful?
Beyond the question of utility, there is an even more pressing issue: If Dr. Carroll and all the other people involved in scientific research would indeed take the intelligent designer's way out, then the logical consequence would be to simply stop looking for these amazing, beautiful, useful and factual answers. It is easy to say the supernatural did it. But it is not useful to our understanding of the natural world and is counterproductive to the practice of science.
Scientists like professor Carroll do not take the easy way out. They keep looking, keep working and never ever give up in their search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Should we also stop looking for answers to AIDS, cancer and every other approachable question in our natural world, simply because a few people believe these things have been intelligently designed? We should not stop the practice of science. It is useful and reveals an elegance and beauty in nature that is observable and testable.
The Discovery Institute still believes that the Cambrian Explosion occurred because an intelligent designer directly interceded in the biology of the planet and made it happen by divine intervention. Dr. Carroll has explained it in the useful, scientific terms of natural selection without any magic tricks or supernatural intervention. Which description is more useful? Dr. Carroll's description even helps us understand more deeply certain developmental defects (birth defects) that happen in our own human species. I ask again, which description is more useful?
Beyond the question of utility, there is an even more pressing issue: If Dr. Carroll and all the other people involved in scientific research would indeed take the intelligent designer's way out, then the logical consequence would be to simply stop looking for these amazing, beautiful, useful and factual answers. It is easy to say the supernatural did it. But it is not useful to our understanding of the natural world and is counterproductive to the practice of science.
Scientists like professor Carroll do not take the easy way out. They keep looking, keep working and never ever give up in their search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Should we also stop looking for answers to AIDS, cancer and every other approachable question in our natural world, simply because a few people believe these things have been intelligently designed? We should not stop the practice of science. It is useful and reveals an elegance and beauty in nature that is observable and testable.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Scott Rewak
posted 4/12/07 @ 5:40 PM EST
Excellent explanation, Dr. Wise. (An appropriate name if I have ever heard one). It is simply a matter of 2 different topics, religion and science.
Post a Comment