Base10 would like to touch on the so-called intelligent design controversy raised by the President in recent remarks. Basically, he said that intelligent design should be taught in school along with evolution.

While this statement obviously panders to the religious right, it also has a sort of shallow intellectual appeal. Why not present competing sides to an issue? After all, isn't that what education is all about? But this is where that pro-intelligent design people get it wrong. While they argue about the fossil record, they miss a much deeper question which science has failed to answer.

The idea that the complexity of life is proof of the existence of God has been expressed by theologians and philosophers for centuries. A competing view was that of the wind-up clock creator. Under this guise, the creator wound up the universe like a clock only to set it ticking to see what unfolds.

It is however only in this context that the idea should be taught. It belongs in philosophy class, not biology class. I am reminded of my own Catholic school experience trying to reconcile religious teachings from that of other classes. (Why are the Romans the good guys who spread civilization in history class but the bad guys when they oppressed the Jews during Christ's time? Be quiet young man!)

The fact is, intelligent design is not science and doesn't belong in a science class at any level of education. Let children discuss with their parents and clergyman the religious implications of the scientific principles they learn. Even a cursory look at the fossil record should convince any observer of the truth of evolution.

But what the religious right is missing is a chance to ask a question that science simply cannot answer. Namely, how exactly did life begin? Remember this is a much different question than how life developed after it began.

Think about it. The earth existed. The oceans were a sort of chemical soup. Lifeless. All of a sudden, there are self-replicating DNA strands. Life. How did this happen? The most popular theory is based on the Urey-Miller experiment where scientists put all the chemicals found in the primordial sea in an apparatus where it was circulated through an electric current to simulate lightning. The popular notion is that after the device was set to run for a period of time, amino acids--the precursors of proteins--were found in the "soup."

There are many problems with this experiment. The most prominent being that the process didn't produce life forming amino acids at all but just lifeless hydrocarbons--tar, if you will. Even if you did accept that the primordial seas were rich with amino acids, the chance of the right combination combining into a strand of DNA is staggeringly small. Other theories involve the creation of life near the earth's extreme environments like volcanic fissures. Still others postulate a galactic cloud of organic material that seeded the earth. While this "panspermia" idea has some liberal Star Trekky charm to it, it is as scientifically unsatisfying as the others.

How did life begin? Who knows? But the religious right would be far more persuasive if they suggested that that the intervention of a creator was one competing theory on the origin of life rather than its evolution.

The theories described in the post are largely derived from a book called "Origins" by Robert Shapiro. I will post a link when I get to work.

UPDATE: Here is a link to Shapiro's book on Amazon. Highly recommended.

UPDATE: Base10 swears he ddn't read this Peter Wood article at NRO until after 9PM this evening.

- posted by Base10 @ 11:28 AM