Defending evolution with sound, scientific thought

During a symposium last week, President Tilghman unequivocally spoke out against intelligent design, calling the trend towards questioning Darwinian evolution in schools "shocking" and "most troubling." By using her platform as the leader of one of America's foremost universities in this way, Tilghman undoubtedly arrayed herself against much of public opinion and courted controversy. But she did so for the noblest of reasons: to uphold the principles to which she has devoted her career — a respect for empirical science and an imperative to promote respect for and understanding of that knowledge in our nation's youth. In a time when ideology is beginning to trump biology in some parts of the country, we strongly endorse her decision.

Our endorsement stems from the fact that intelligent design as it currently exists simply is not science. For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable, which intelligent design, even according to its strongest proponents, is not. Furthermore, proponents of intelligent design have not published empirical evidence for their theory in peer-reviewed scientific journals — an act that has become the hallmark of serious research. No doubt this is why there is virtually total consensus among scientists that Darwinian evolution is a key part of modern biology.

Perhaps in time there will be a strong laboratory-based critique of evolution that is falsifiable in a way that intelligent design is not. Then it will become like all the cornerstones of science — the theories of thermodynamics, gravity, and relativity as well as evolution. If that day does come, we will be the first to endorse discussion of the ensuing debate in schools. But intelligent design is not such a critique, and our nation's students deserve to be taught science as we best understand it — not ideologically inspired speculation.