Why should we teach intelligent design in science classes when it’s not science? The intelligent-design movement has not tested a single hypothesis in more than 25 years of existence. In fact, it has not even come up with a single falsifiable hypothesis in all that time. Even its proponents concede that it is not capable of predicting anything about the natural world. That means it’s not science.
In fact, if it were taught in science classes, it would be the first time in history that something would be taught as science before it had produced any experimental evidence. It is a shame that the Globe Ideas section gave a forum to an author who threw about a few terms that sounded scientific but who cited no predictions that were tested. Was the piece enticing because it seemed controversial?
If so, readers should know that intelligent design is a political controversy, and not a scientific one. Perhaps next time the Globe will invite a two-page article from a member of the Flat Earth Society. I’m sure that they, too, would love to discuss their “theory.”
The writer teaches human anatomy and physiology at Curry College and is the author of “The Not-So-Intelligent Designer.”