Do you believe in...science?

I finished work early today, and knew I would have some time to blog. As I waited for the muse to strike, I read the News section of the Sunday Chronicle. It's rare to see news from my home state (Pennsylvania. Go Lions. We are...Penn State!!);

however, a story concerning "Intelligent Design" in Dover, PA, was above the fold on the front page. Interestingly, an article about the Dalai Lama visiting Stanford was hanging from a peg beneath it.

Here's the long and short of it as I understand it. The school board of a small community in PA decided that a statement endorsing the limitations of the theory of evolution and discussing the idea of Intelligent Design would be read to every science class. (Intelligent design, if you've been under a rock, suggests that there are holes in Darwin's theory of natural selection that can be better explained by a supreme being who planned it all.) Interestingly, the science teachers of the community refused to read the statement, so an administrator had to do it. Some parents sued, and now it is a heavily scrutinized court case -- given similar inroads of Intelligent Design in other states.

As an MD/PhD, you might guess where I come down on this. As a debater, I found that you can often win merely by defining the terms, so let's start with this (from www.m-w.com):
sci-ence -- 3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method (I'll spare you the definition of the scientific method.)

Do I think that the theory of evolution through natural selection is true? Yes.
Are there things it doesn't explain well? Yes.
Can I prove to you that a supreme being didn't lay down an impressive fossil record and manipulate DNA to test our faith? No.
Can you prove to me that S/he did? No.
Here's the kicker. Can we test it? No.
Does that make it an article of FAITH that belongs in CCD and not science class (based on the definition above)? YES.

Boy, that was pretty easy. Seems like a number of state courts could save money by reading my blog. As an immunologist, I have to add that one of the alleged short-comings of the theory of evolution is the development of the immune system. This is an interesting question; but, for the record, there are groups testing it with research rather than rhetoric. One thought is that the origin of the immune system lies in the need for uni/pauci-cellular organisms not to merge if their cell membranes got too close.

This is not to say that science cannot learn from other disciplines. The article on the Dalai Lama was, I thought, a nice example of how "Western" science can learn from other traditions that have stood the test of time. I was disappointed to hear that some neuroscientists did not want him at their conference. They have a right to their opinion, but I think it would be a great opportunity.

Lest you think that I am a complete science nerd, I was reading all this while watching Family Guy. Stuey defeats the Taliban, a spoof of The Jeffersons, the "side-boob" hour, and a song about the FCC -- I was howling. Somehow, I don't see an "Intelligent Designer" bringing us Family Guy. This had to be evolution and market forces at the lowest common denominator.

I may have more to say tomorrow, if I'm not too busy drooling after Prison Break. Unlike Stuey, Wentworth Miller may be evidence of a benign, and possible loving, deity. Now if only he were a "family" guy.