Thank God for Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman has recently published an op-ed in the New York Times in which he tackles so-called "intelligent design theory," and the controversy over the teaching of evolution. However, unlike many scientists who insists in thinking that this is a matter of science, or at most of education policy, Krugman hits the nail on the head and puts the problem in the broadest context.

Krugman maintains that the strategy of advocates of intelligent design is the same as that of critics of global warming, or of enthusiasts of supply-side economics. To wit, attack the science in the public area, exploit the few dissenting voices within the scientific community (which, after all, is made of human beings with all their frailties, including the search for fame and money), and present your manouvers as a genuine push to contribute to the "market of ideas."

The result, in both the cases of supply-side economics and global warming, has been that a large sector of the public is now confused about what scientists actually think, with a lingering feeling that the jury really is out there (in the case of global warming, the jury has come back long ago: it's happening, and humans have at least something to do with it; in the case of supply-side economics, there isn't a shred of empirical evidence to show that tax cuts are economically beneficial).

Krugman suggests that the same is happening to the "controversy" between creationism and evolution, because intelligent design (unlike standard young-earth creationism) is fuzzy enough, and makes apparently "reasonable"enough claims, to serve the purpose.

A colleague of mine told me of a very effective way to show to students that something isn't a scientific controversy. He walks into his introductory college-level class with a pitcher full of water, and puts some ice in it. He then asks his students to predict what will happen once the ice melts. About 9 out of 10 of them say that the water will overflow from the pitcher. This, of course, doesn't happen, because of the density properties of water. My colleague then turns to the class and says: "See? There is no scientific controversy about the physical properties of ice. The fact that the majority of you predicted the overflow simply means that you are ignorant of basic physics." Ouch. Similarly, there is no scientific controversy about the evolutionary theory, but the demagogues that support intelligent design want you to believe there is one. Are you going to allow them to make a monkey out of you?