William Rusher: The end of evolution?

It's good to hear from Mr. Rusher, a conservative icon.

Wave bye-bye to the unproved theory turned religiopolitical dogma, kiddies.

In its June 21st issue, the New York Times reports on a most interesting decision by certain members of the scientific community. The Kansas State Board of Education was wrestling, this spring, with the question of what Kansas high-school students ought to be taught about the theory of evolution.

On one side were those who believe that the truth of the theory has been demonstrated so conclusively, strictly as a matter of science, that the contention that it is open to serious scientific question, and may require amendment, ought not to be considered at all. Any such suggestion, they insisted, should be banned from Kansas' science classes in toto.

On the other side were some serious scientists, by no means "creationists" or religious crazies, who subscribe to a relatively new and scientifically sophisticated theory called "intelligent design." This concept, whose exploration has been supported by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., argues (to oversimplify) that various developments that have occurred in the process of evolution are too complex to be explained – as Darwin explained them – simply as the result of random accidents.

Certain aspects of the development of the eye, for example, seem to these scientists to require, for their explanation, what has come to be called "intelligent design." The designer may, of course, be God, but the exponents of the concept don't insist on this. They contend only that the theory of evolution requires amendment to include acknowledgment of instances of (some sort of) intelligent design.

But this has, of course, roused tremendous resistance in some other parts of the scientific community. They insist that all natural phenomena can be explained as the result of random accidents, thus eliminating the need for "intelligent design." They regard the notion as merely a new way of slipping God into the realm of science, and denounce it wholeheartedly. People can believe in God if they want to, these critics argue, but they have no business bringing Him into the wholly separate field of science.

Kansas' Board of Education decided to hear exponents of both viewpoints, and invited them to participate in hearings on the subject. But some of America's most prominent scientific spokesmen refused even to attend. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, a heavyweight organization of researchers and teachers, for example, boycotted the hearings. The debate, critics asserted, would not be a scientific exchange but "a political show trial." They warned that the Board members would not choose which theory to teach, but instead "teach the controversy."

And indeed, that is what the Board finally voted to do. They found "credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological theory," and that it is "important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates."

In a way, one can sympathize with the scientists who refused even to discuss the matter. It must be exasperating to devote one's life to a theory as elegant as the theory of evolution, with all its implications for the nature of the universe, only to find it challenged, decades on, by people who believe it requires major and thoroughly unsettling amendments. Better to cast such carpers into the outer darkness, and refuse even to discuss their contentions!