ID Defended as Science in British Newspaper
The Guardian published an editorial by Richard Buggs today which corrects the error, so common in the British media, that intelligent design is not to be seriously evaluated as science but conveniently written off as "religion."
Buggs, who holds a DPhil in plant ecology and evolution from the University of Oxford and sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science, first addresses the claims made by Darwin's defenders:
Darwin made a massive contribution to science, and his ideas still suggest hypotheses today. These provide the starting point for my own research, published in journals of evolution. But despite the brilliance of Darwin's work, it is overoptimistic to claim that his theory explains the origin of all living things.
After examining the evidence, he compares the ability of ID to predict certain features of our universe with that of Darwinism. While some evolutionists argue that ID is "science-stopping," Buggs counters with the facts of the matter and a little history:
If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry. The pioneers of modern science, who were convinced that nature is designed, consequently held that it could be understood by human intellects. This confidence helped to drive the scientific revolution. More recently, proponents of ID predicted that some "junk" DNA must have a function well before this view became mainstream among Darwinists.This article goes a long way in what is an uphill battle for open discussion and dialogue over the controversy in the UK. Here's hoping that readers will see the truth in Buggs' final point: "If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced."