Pseudo-science and intelligent design

In all the fuss over creation “science” and its new alias, intelligent design, one point keeps getting missed. The essential difference between real science and a pseudo-science like creation science is that proponents of real science are seeking the truth, while proponents of creation science are certain they already know the truth.

For real scientists, the theory of evolution is simply the best guess we have now that seems to fit the evidence. No doubt it is wrong in some details, if not wholly, but as more evidence accumulates and alternative theories get tested whatever errors there are will eventually get sorted out. Scientists are humble (well, most of them are) about what they think they know, and willing to change their minds and adjust their theories on the basis of new evidence.

Believers in creation science, however, think God has revealed the truth to them, and they are just trying to cherry-pick the evidence to support what they already believe to be true and give it some respectability. There is no evidence that would change their minds (well, maybe if God herself spoke to them….).

Followers of creation science and intelligent design are like peddlers of fad diets – they cite evidence that supports their product but carefully ignore the greater body of evidence that wouldn’t support it.

If we in America are foolish enough to force our schools to teach our young people this sort of religion-based pseudo-science, we will deserve the unpleasant consequences of letting ignorance rule our lives.