=20
=20
Dan Gillmor, a noted technology columnist, on an ID-related topic:=
=20
=46rom: Dan Gillmor <dan@gillmor.com>=20
Date: October 20, 2005 1:22:12 AM EDT=20
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>=20
Today's column:=20 http://bayosphere.com/blog/dan_gillmor/20051019/ =20
tech_execs_should_speak_out_=20
for_science_0=20
Tech Execs Should Speak Out for Science=20
Submitted by Dan Gillmor on Wed, 10/19/2005 - 10:06pm.=20
(This is my column in today's Financial Times.)=20
American technology executives often complain about the inadequacies=
of=20
public education, and rightly. They worry especially loudly about t=
he lack of=20
higher standards and attainment in the all-critical areas of maths a=
nd science.=20
There is self-interest involved, of course. If any industry needs a=
=20
qualified workforce in an increasingly knowledge-based economy, it i=
s theirs.=20
Yet they are all but silent on a threat to the science curriculum in=
=20
particular, and to the scientific method in a more general sense. F=
ew of the=20
technology elite have addressed the movement to elevate =E2=80=9Cint=
elligent design=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 a=20
proxy for biblical creationism =E2=80=93 to a place equal to evoluti=
on in the=20
classroom. In Kansas, the state=E2=80=99s top school officials seem =
bent on requiring=20
classes to offer intelligent design as a plausible alternative to ev=
olution. In a=20
federal trial now under way in Pennsylvania, a judge is hearing argu=
ments=20
against a local school board=E2=80=99s decision to do likewise.=20
President George W Bush has leapt into the fray. In a statement that=
=20
appealed to his political base but shocked his own science adviser, =
Mr Bush recently=20
said he thought intelligent design should be taught in class as the =
other=20
side of the issue.=20
Proponents of intelligent design have become experts in using langua=
ge, if=20
not science. They point out, correctly, that Charles Darwin and his=
=20
successors can=E2=80=99t fully explain some natural phenomena with th=
e well-established=20
scientific theory of natural selection. And they point to the astoni=
shing=20
complexity and beauty of our universe.=20
They also claim that intelligent design isn=E2=80=99t really creatio=
nism, the notion=20
that God created the world in a week, with one day off, just a few t=
housand=20
years ago. No, they say, it=E2=80=99s the examination of life=E2=
=80=99s near-infinite=20
complexity, and the inescapable conclusion that only an intelligent =
entity could=20
have created it, not natural selection =E2=80=93 intelligent as in G=
od.=20
They artfully misuse the word =E2=80=9Ctheory=E2=80=9D as applied in =
science. Evolution is=20
not just a theory in the lay sense. The evidence supports it overwhe=
lmingly.=20
The scientific method does not support intelligent design. The latt=
er=E2=80=99s=20
proponents fill in evolution=E2=80=99s holes =E2=80=93 tiny ones, by=
scientific standards =E2=80=93=20
essentially with faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, and a gr=
eat deal=20
right. Behind faith can lie great strength, and if religion has been=
the root of=20
much conflict, it is also the root of much good, such as when religi=
ous=20
leaders stand up for the powerless and against abusers of power.=
=20
But religion is not science. It does not belong in science class. B=
ill=20
Gates is one of the loudest worriers about the quality of US schools=
, and has=20
given billions via his foundation and company to improving educatio=
n and=20
science, notably healthcare. Yet his foundation has also lent financ=
ial support to=20
the intelligent design =20
movement=E2=80=99s most prominent think-tank, the Seattle-based Disc=
overy Institute.=20
The money is directed at programmes other than intelligent design, =
but=20
helps pay the director=E2=80=99s salary =E2=80=93 and if anyone knows=
that money is fungible, it=20
ought to be Bill Gates.=20
At least one member of the tech elite is not silent. Eric Benhamou =
=E2=80=93 the=20
former longtime chief executive of networking pioneer 3Com, currentl=
y an adjunct=20
professor at Insead =E2=80=93 addressed the issue at a recent public=
conversation in=20
which I took part. We were discussing the larger topic of corporate=
social=20
responsibility. I asked Benhamou whether it was the duty of executiv=
es to=20
speak out when the president of the US suggests that science classes=
be required=20
to teach =E2=80=9Cintelligent design=E2=80=9D as an =20
alternative to evolution.=20
They absolutely should speak out, he said. It=E2=80=99s a fact, he o=
bserved, that=20
today=E2=80=99s knowledge-based companies need people =E2=80=9Cwhose =
minds are trained on=20
knowledge and scientific fact, and not mixed up with this creationism=
bullshit.=E2=80=9D =20
I then asked if he could name anyone in a prominent corporate positi=
on who=E2=80=99d=20
actually spoken out in this way. He could not, he said with what sou=
nded=20
like regret: =E2=80=9CIt=E2=80=99s hard to be caught on TV saying the=
se things, but it=E2=80=99s =20
particularly important now. I feel quite =20
worried that we=E2=80=99re passive about it.=E2=80=9D=20
Silence in the face of this challenge to basic education is not just=
wrong.=20
It is damaging to America=E2=80=99s future. It gives advantage to na=
tions where=20
children learn science based solely on evidence.=20
Powerful people should be defending science. Why are so many so sile=
nt?