"Bush sparks row over teaching that disputes Darwin"

It has begun.

George W Bush, in a nod to his right-wing Christian fundamentalist friends, has put into motion a recommendation to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. And since Bush is President of the world's most powerful nation.... what Bush wants, Bush gets. (see Gulf War 2)

Which is pretty much a slap in the face to scientists and science.

In fact, I'm surprised that this move didn't come any sooner after his re-election. Bush must has been putting this on hold so that he doesn't end up alienating science advocates before his second term election.

So what is Intelligent Design, and why is it such a big problem?

Intelligent Design states that life on Earth is (partially or wholy) a product of an external intelligence and creation. This stands in direct contradiction with Evolution, which states that natural selection, where only the fittest and most adaptable survive, is the only force that has led to the state of life on Earth toaday.

So far so good, so what's the problem?

The problem doesn't lie in the fact that conservative religious folks in USA stand for ID, while scientists stand for Darwinism. I'm not discriminating against religion.

The problem isn't because there was a court battle on ID vs Evolution before, and evolution warn. ID may have come up with a better alternative since the last battle it lost.

The problem isn't because Bush is quite ignorant when it comes to science. That's the job of his science advisor.



The problem is actually two-pronged. Firstly, Intelligent design doesn't present any solution of any kind. It simply states that life is too complex for evolution to be the only means. Then it says that if evolution is not enough, some external intelligence must have done it. In effect, this is answering a mystery with a mystery. ID doesn't ask further into what this intelligence is and what it's motives are. It gets us nowhere. There is no field in science that comes to a conclusion because it's a "last-resort" solution. And there's no field in science where the research and questioning stops just like that.

Secondly, the "proofs" for ID are frought with a range of problems. They stem from a poor understanding and consequently poor usage of statistics. It also assumes that the question of life is black or white, thus producing a false dichotomy where if one answer is false, the other must be true. (science doesn't work like that. It's shades of gray) ID also conveniently ignores many of the defects that are built into organic lifeforms, like vertebrate eyes being built the wrong way round, which are errors that one would not expect from intelligence capable of producing life.