Reactions

More on ‘intelligent design'

Kudos to you for the courage shown in your editorial “Evolution Under Fire” (C&EN, Aug. 29, page 3) and your decision to publish letters from scientists who recognize that evolution is science; intelligent design is not. Some previous letter writers, who, as scientists, should know better, have chosen to ignore this simple distinction.

Does anyone remember cold fusion and the resulting media frenzy that followed chemistry professors B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann's announcement at the University of Utah on March 23, 1989-at a press conference (not in the usual article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal)-that they had achieved controlled nuclear fusion at room temperature with a “simple tabletop apparatus”? This process that powers the sun and stars would furnish an unlimited amount of inexpensive, safe energy. However, it had been thought to require temperatures of millions of degrees and had eluded the world's greatest nuclear physicists working in the most complicated, multi-million-dollar facilities.

By the next day, reputable scientists all over the world rushed to replicate the findings in hopes of sharing the glory if the discoveries proved to be true. For five years, I reported these attempts, which were unsuccessful, in my “Applied Chemistry” feature of the “Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook of Science and the Future” as a classic example for nonscientists of how science actually works.

If the Discovery Institute and proponents of intelligent design consider intelligent design to be real science, they should submit their results to peer-reviewed journals instead of publishing articles and books for nonscientists, who, unfortunately, seem to be impressed by these religious, political, and public relations efforts. If they're successful in proving their case, a Nobel Prize or at least a Templeton Prize surely awaits them. I guarantee it.

George B. Kauffman
Fresno, Calif.

The intelligent design concept seems to be an attempt to use an old approach to deal with possible conflicts between religious beliefs and science. In the post-Enlightenment era, humanity moved away from the thought that mystical forces controlled everything from the seasons to earthquakes, and the Age of Reason introduced logical explanations for natural processes and even emotional ones.

Because of this new Enlightenment-era attitude and the increasing availability to common people of information ranging from science to the text of the Bible, independent thinking and reasoning developed in the population. In addition, events on Earth were seen as having causes that were not brought about by a supernatural being or force. This thinking became generally accepted, and religious leaders had to adopt it in their discussions to have credibility with the public in the late 1800s and early 20th century. This placed religious leaders in a quandary, because the culture of absolute faith (and turning to religious leaders for answers) was changing.

Some religious leaders adapted and used the methods of this new movement in religious study. Among other things, this resulted in critical analysis of Biblical texts, so that even the date of the “End” was predicted. Although it was not, of itself, a part of religious controversy until others began applying it to religious questions, Darwin's work on evolution was a part of and a product of this new thinking, as was the concept that disease was caused by microorganisms. I believe that this is also the time when intelligent design was first discussed. It was an attempt to use the methods of science and logic to show that faith was rational.

It seems that religions can be divided into two parts: the moral part, which deals with what should and should not be done by people, and the mythical part, which deals with actions of historical beings (often supernatural) and prescribed ceremonies and rituals. Oddly, the moral part is usually not a source of disagreement among different religions. The moral part also seems not to be in conflict with the logical thinking ushered in during the Enlightenment, but that thinking does conflict with the mythical part. Unfortunately, the mythical parts of religions also seem to be a common source of friction, and I have no suggestions on how to help this situation.

Obviously, based on their backgrounds, C&EN readers are more likely attuned to the logical, Enlightenment-era approach to faith as opposed to the mythical one, although I am sure this does not apply to all. In considering troubled areas of the world, one can often see that differences in the mythical aspects of faith contribute to the trouble. These areas include Northern Ireland, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and so on. The only other thing these areas have in common seems to be past British rule.

Henry B. Kerfoot
Huntington Beach, Calif.

You quote President George W. Bush as saying, “Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.” You then go on to say how “depressing it is that President Bush would embrace teaching intelligent design.” Regardless of the issue of whether evolution is the correct theory as to origin of life or whether there is intelligent design, I am disappointed that you seem to ignore the point of teaching different schools of thought.

It sounds like your idea is to teach only one view as long as it's your view. If intelligent design were the prevailing theory taught in public schools and you wanted evolution taught, you would be crying for equal time, intellectual freedom, and a liberal education to expose students to a variety of ideas. You would be accusing the current educators of brainwashing our students. What is the matter-are you afraid evolution won't hold up if students are exposed to other ideas? Where is your cry to have students learn how to think rather than be taught what to think?

I am also disappointed that the ACS Board would approve a statement that “evolution is the only scientific explanation for the origin and diversity of species.” I assume this means macroevolution, to offer an explanation of the process of the one-celled-organism-to-human theory, rather than just microevolution, which addresses changes within a species. Our science can, within reason, explain changes within species, but there are some big scientific problems in trying to make evolutionary theory be the only explanation for different species.

This elitist attitude within ACS about origin-of-life education-which extends to cutting off discussion of or exploration into other ideas-is one reason why I am seriously considering resigning from this organization after more than 35 years of membership.

Marvin L. Raymond
St. Louis

Valuing chemical technicians

In his Letter to the Editor, Ernest L. Rector III highlighted the need for the American Chemical Society to be more inclusive of members with associate's degrees (C&EN, Aug. 8, page 11). The ACS Committee on Technician Activities (CTA) and the Division of Chemical Technicians (TECH) agree. We are working with other ACS committees and divisions not only to include the associate's degree category on surveys, but also to raise the awareness of technician careers and provide relevant resources. ChemTechLinks, a project of the ACS Education Division, is focused on similar goals.

As noted in the ACS Comment “A Strategic Focus on Chemical Technicians,” the professional preparation and development of technicians and chemists are similar (C&EN, April 4, page 72). ACS needs to communicate that many existing resources and programs will be beneficial to technicians and their employers.

Participation of technicians is also beneficial to ACS. Although the number of ACS members with associate's degrees is low, these members are among the leaders in ACS at the local and national levels. Increasing the number of members with associate's degrees and encouraging their involvement will expand the ACS volunteer base. Providing members who have associate's degrees with opportunities to develop leadership skills will enhance their impact.

ACS is the society for chemical professionals, including technicians. As the anniversary celebration for CTA (40th) and TECH (10th) at the fall ACS national meeting highlighted, we've come a long way. There are still many opportunities ahead. Those who would like to help pursue them should contact us at cta@acs.org.

John H. Engelman
Chair, Committee on Technician Activities
Racine, Wis.

Janet M. Smith
Chair, Division of Chemical Technicians
Swartz Creek, Mich.