HCN’s recent cover story on
the fate of the Anasazi was both mystical and informative —
mystical because it was peppered with references to the imagination
(HCN, 10/3/05: Out of the Four Corners). The article attributed
archaeologist Susan Ryan with gaining a knowledge that “was too
intimate and instinctual” to fit within the confines of her
profession.
Just a few pages further, biologist Pepper
Trail’s essay talked about how the evolution versus
intelligent design debate threatens to convert our society from a
reality-based one into a belief-based one. Trail’s thesis
seems to be that our society cannot afford to have our
understanding of reality governed by what we choose to believe; it
must be informed by factual evidence and testable hypotheses
— in short, by science.
Why is it permissible for
Susan Ryan to hold and propagate her beliefs, but not permissible
for intelligent design advocates to do the same?
Ken Frederick
Boise, Idaho
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Belief versus science.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
