The editorial in the SMU newspaper was largely right in its dismissal of the "so-called debate" held last weekend at SMU, sponsored by The Discovery Institute, promoters of Intelligent Design (ID). The only sentence from the editorial I quibble with is the one above. I agree some ID arguments are laughable, but some of the challenges must be taken seriously and answered by science.
For example, is the rate of mutation and natural selection fast enough to account for the diversity in living things we observe today? Or, is there an evolutionary sequence that could conceivably account for the emergence of various so-called irreducibly complex structures we observe today? I'm confident the answer to the questions posed by ID theorists is yes, but science still has to do the hard work of proposing and testing hypotheses that justify that answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment