I am writing in response to recent queries about my remarks on intelligent design, as quoted in the October 5 issue of the Weekly.  I want to be very clear:  Intelligent design is not science.  I do not think that intelligent design is in any way a scientific substitute for the theory of evolution, nor should it be taught as scientific fact.  As a Stanford-trained engineer, I know the importance of rigorous scientific method, and I stand by it.  In addition, I stand by the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state, and I would never support using public schools to preach religious views.

Nonetheless, our students are hearing about intelligent design through the media.  When I discussed inclusion of the topic in our classrooms, it was because I believe there is value in analyzing what is and isn’t scientific theory.  Our teachers rightly include discussion of many controversial, value-laden topics–not to indoctrinate our students but to arm them to think critically and constructively about the social issues we all face.  I consider such discussion fundamental to a free society.  But that does not mean that I think that intelligent design should be presented as a scientific alternative for evolution.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position.  I do not support teaching intelligent design in our classrooms, but neither would I ban all mention of it.  In the end, I believe our students gain a greater appreciation for science by understanding what isn’t science and why–and they become better informed citizens as well.

Sincerely,
Dana Tom