Letter to the Editor: Evolution isn’t about beliefs, but testing.
One major problem with the “debate” about evolution is that one side seems to think this is about belief, but the other side knows that this is about empirical
data and hypothesis testing. Scientists may have beliefs about how things work,
and their beliefs might direct them toward different hypotheses. But science does
not stop there (in fact it hasn’t even started yet). Science requires us to deduce
tests of a hypothesis, and collect data that could conflict with it.
For example if my hypothesis were that all swans are white, then I predict that it would be impossible for me to find a non-white swan. If I find a black swan I must reject the hypothesis that all swans are white. It does not matter what I believe about swans, just that I believe my eyes. If the data fail to reject the hypothesis, then it is corroborated (i.e. tentatively accepted). In reality it may be impossible to check every swan now, therefore data collected in the future could reject a previously corroborated hypothesis.
What testable predictions (deductions) does intelligent design make
about future data? None. So why are there a few rogue scientists who support this idea? One answer is that not everything a scientist does is science. When talking about intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, these people are promoting beliefs, not conducting science. This is why their arguments end up in books and on web pages but not in scientific journals. This confuses the public into thinking that there actually is a debate, in the scientific literature, about whether or not evolution happens. There isn’t. It does.
Finally I would like to point out that rejecting evolution without conflicting data
is not just anti-evolution, it is anti-science. Agriculture researchers in Russia
made this mistake decades ago when they rejected Mendel’s hypotheses about
inheritance (a major component of evolution). The result was major crop losses and famine. How do you think the next flu vaccine would be created if
researchers used intelligent design as their model?
Eric O’Neill