![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It looks like a letter to the editor that I wrote to the Chicago Tribune has made it past the first round of editorial cuts. It is now on their website, and they say they'll let me know if it ends up in the print edition.
The letter is a response to a recent editorial on "intelligent design" creationism; the editorial wasn't bad, but I felt that it came too close to "teach the controversy" for comfort. (There is no serious scientific controversy about the issues in question, that's the point.) Since the Tribune link will eventually disappear, I'll include the text of my letter here.
The letter is a response to a recent editorial on "intelligent design" creationism; the editorial wasn't bad, but I felt that it came too close to "teach the controversy" for comfort. (There is no serious scientific controversy about the issues in question, that's the point.) Since the Tribune link will eventually disappear, I'll include the text of my letter here.
Update: Looks like it will run in Monday's print edition! Woo hoo!
As a scientist, I applaud the Tribune's call for teachers to "inform students that today's science doesn't have every answer," ("Schools and 'intelligent design'", Aug. 14).
That is the very essence of science.
But we must also teach that science can advance only when we seek those answers. By contrast, intelligent design asserts that many scientific questions are forever unanswerable. That claim is based on faith, not reason, and an overwhelming majority of scientists—religious or not—insist that such arguments have no place in a science class.
So by all means, encourage students to ask deep questions and to seek meaning in nature. But don't ask teachers to present unscientific methods as a valid alternative within science itself.
Steuard Jensen
Chicago
Tags: