February 28, 2005
A Note about Intelligent Design
Since we had a bit of a discussion about ID last week, I thought this might be of interest to some. Here's the main point, a quote from Bush's science advisor, John Marburger:
Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic."
This makes me wonder what Bush's own position on this topic is. Were Marburger's words a deviation from the administration's platform? Obviously scientists should not be beholden to any political ideology, but the president's science advisor holds what would seem to be an inherently politicized position. A brief google search didn't turn up anything stating Bush's opinion. Anyone have an answer?
I don't really think this scientist's position is controversial or even 'political' within the scientific community--intelligent design is widely recognized to be pseudoscience. Bush is hardly well served by selecting advisors from outside the mainstream (after all, if Americans respect anything, they respect scientists). In any case, I think Bush has to walk the line that there is a distinction between science and faith, although I wouldn't be suprised to see him embrace creationism (rhetorically, as a matter of personal opinion), as it is another way to exact the loyalty of fundamentalists.
The odd thing about this debate is that it was already fought out in the 19th century, with most Protestant faiths accepting evolution and integrating it into theology. Bush's United Methodist faith is in this tradition--they have no official position on evolution.
No, of course it's not controversial within the scientific community. ID just isn't science. That said, Bush's science advisor also defended the administration's misuse and abuse of science in supporting their arguments, so it's clearly not a totally objective position he holds. Creationism isn't a matter of personal opinion vs evolution, though. It's every bit as wrong as ID. The only way the two can be reconciled is if you say God created all life through the process of evolution (which is the compromise you probably mean). However, that's not what creationism means today.