"The Edge", a humorous one-inch-wide daily feature in the Oregonian's Living section, announced a contest last week to create "Hai-Choos", defined as haikus on the topic of allergies. Being both a hack poet and an allergy sufferer, I submitted three pretty good hai-choos, and one of them was chosen as an "honorable mention" today:
Call me a felon
Tried to stop runny nose with
Pseudoephedrine
Life doesn't get any better than that. Or maybe it does.
The board never mentioned it, but it is clearly understood by both sides that this is a precursor to the introduction of "intelligent design" as a plausible alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.
Evolution is not just a theory. It has been observed in the laboratory with lower life forms. We have seen natural selection in action. It is quite true that no one has observed evolution in humans, but it requires extreme arrogance to assert that homo sapiens was somehow exempt from the same natural processes that cover all other organisms on the planet.
A good story is not enough to make good science. Personally, I find the "intelligent design" argument to be compelling. I'm a Christian; I believe in God. As I look through my eyes and observe the intricate workings of the muscles and bones in my hands, I find it hard to imagine that these mechanisms evolved at random, even over the geologic time scales that are involved. However, there is absolutely no way to concoct an experiment that would either confirm or deny the presence of a divine intelligence. Absent that, the topic is nothing more than rumor -- a thought experiment -- faith. It is NOT science.
I have no problem with textbooks which say, for example, "there are many people of faith who believe that evolutionary processes are guided by a Divine Creator", but insisting that intelligent design be given the status of "scientific theory" is nothing but religious fundamentalism.
