Utahns' e-mails defend, attack intelligent design

The "intelligent design" issue has been debated extensively by Utahns who have a strong interest in cosmology.

These commentators, both scientists and nonscientists representing both sides, addressed the subject in the Utah Astronomy e-mail discussion list.

A sampling of some of their postings, reprinted with permission:

Don J. Colton, Sandy: "The statistical improbabilities associated with blind natural selection can be discussed, and many authors have done so. This applies to many irreducibly complex components and organisms. . . .

"There is more information contained in an individual cell than in a complete set of the Encyclopedia Britannica. . . . Many futile experiments have been conducted trying to create cells through natural processes. Darwin incorrectly believed that individual cells were very simple in design.

"I believe the idea of intelligent design as an explanation for at least the first cells can be readily taught without pointing to any particular religion. It is much more likely than the staggeringly improbable idea that the first cells were created by chance."

Chuck Hards, West Valley City: "Must strongly disagree, Don. I feel your way of thinking is much more unlikely. It's not science if the first cells were 'breathed upon the waters' — so please keep it out of science class, and in the seminary where it belongs. By all means believe it, just don't teach it to my kids as science.

"Further, it's not pure chance, it's a natural progression, a process of chemistry/biochemistry (which was ultimately started by an intelligence but which is completely outside of the process at that point). . . .

"The fossil record is not complete, certainly, but no one ever made the claim that it is. The understanding of natural history is not complete at present, and no one with a brain in their head would claim it to be just at the time they happen to be living. For as long as there is a human species we will be learning, filling in the blanks of the story of our beginnings and evolution.

"It's too bad that some people feel a need to marginalize real science in order to validate their spiritual beliefs."

Colton: "There is a big difference between Creationism and intelligent design. Many prominent scientists such as Roger Penrose, David Berlinski, Michael Behe and Frank Tripper support some aspects of intelligent design. They are not Creationists and cover the spectrum of believing the universe is fine tuned to allow life to believing that blind evolution is mathematically and statistically impossible.