2761 W. 21st Avenue
Vancouver, BC V6L 1K4
10 April 2007
Ms. Christine Trauttmansdorff
Corporate Secretary
SSHRC
350 Albert Street
P.O. Box 1610
Ottawa, ON
K1P 6G4
Dear Ms. Trauttmansdorff:
The SSHRC and Intelligent Design
Request for a Council Review
A letter to SSHRC Council members
On January 22, 2007 I sent to the council a deposition regarding the adjudication
procedure used in the matter of a grant proposal submitted by Dr. Brian Alters. Ms.
Trauttmansdorff, Corporate secretary for SSHRC, has gracefully acknowledged receipt of
this document. The deposition questions the ability of SSHRC to administer its science
education portfolio and suggested that a quick fix would be to turn the portfolio over to
NSERC. However any procedural problems involved with the implementation of the
suggested corrective measure should not be used to dismiss the problems pointed out in
the deposition. Pseudoscientific considerations have been brought into the peer review
process in the management of Canada’s science education grants and this is a matter of
grave concern. One suggested corrective measure by no means exhausts all possibilities. I
would ask Council to place the matter on their agenda to discuss what measures could
and can be taken.
In consideration of this matter there is no doubt that the pseudoscientific doctrine of
Intelligent Design was considered as a legitimate scientific theory in adjudicating the
Alters grant request in science education. There is the committee’s statement to Alters,
“Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the
assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent
Design theory, was correct.”
and statements to the media
“Intelligent Design stripped of any religious connotations, is an honestly
debated issue among scientists.”
1 of 3
Council – 9 Mar. 2007
“Credible people are trying to see areas where they (evolution and intelligent
design) might come together and not necessarily be in conflict. There is a
possibility of synthesis that compels scholars to keep an open mind.”
SSHRC has backed up this position up with the statement
“That is a debate (the debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design as
being the correct scientific theory) in which the Council has no mandate to
participate.”
Contrast the above with the position of the Royal Society of Canada
“Intelligent Design is a religious belief, and Evolution is the only credible
scientific position that is defensible. The RSC position in support of evolution
has been consistent: from a scientific point of view, the teaching of Evolution
is a benchmark for legitimacy. Other theories or positions, such as Intelligent
Design, are not scientific in basis or nature.”
The peer review adjudication procedure of SSHRC and SSHRC’s reaction to the ensuing
outcry is at clear variance with the RSC statement. With regard to Evolution and
Intelligent Design, there is no debate; there is no possible synthesis. The peer review
system has failed in that pseudoscience was used as a basis for an adjudication decision
on a science education grant. There is a problem.
A non-science culture exists at SSHRC. It is a granting agency primarily for the social
sciences and humanities. My deposition indicates that the bulk of academics available to
staff SSHRC committees are insufficiently versant in science to make informed decisions
concerning science education. There will be a predisposition to adjudicate decisions from
non-scientific viewpoints such as epistemological relativism. After all “how can
metaphysical life theories and explanations taken seriously by millions be ignored or
excluded by a small group of powerful people called scientists?” While relativism may
serve for concepts concerning purely educational hypotheses it is dangerous to apply it to
scientific content. Be aware scientists are not free to adjudicate as they please. They must
adjudicate according to what observational evidence of the real world tells them. This is
the main arbitrator of scientific theories. A case in point is Quantum Mechanics.
Scientists were forced to accept a non-deterministic theory of reality on the basis of
observational evidence. The theory, however, explains observations, and a large part of
the modern technological industrial complex is built on this theory. Hence in a SSHRC
committee considering a science education proposal, the committee must adjudicate
science content according to the rules of science and not to some alternative
philosophical system. Metaphysical life “theories” do not adjudicate via the scientific
method.
In its strategic plan SSHRC states Canada wants to emerge as one of the 21 st century’s
leaders in research, higher education, and innovation. Science education plays a most
important role in this goal. SSHRC is the only government-granting agency in the
2 of 3
Council – 9 Mar. 2007
western world to give scientific credence to Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a
credo that ascribes gaps in our scientific knowledge to a higher intelligence (God) that is
beyond the human intellectual capacity to comprehend. It is a credo that embraces
ignorance and stifles scientific investigation. Canada will certainly not be in a leading
role if pseudoscience such as Intelligent Design is allowed to cloud our thinking in
science education. It is time to see to the proper administration of the science education
mandate. This task has been entrusted to the council. What reforms are necessary to
properly adjudicate science education proposals must be determined and implemented in
order to regain confidence in the SSHRC mandate. Googling “SSHRC intelligent design”
displays the present confidence. I ask that the matter be placed on the SSHRC council
agenda.
Sincerely,
Patrick Walden
Research Scientist
TRIUMF Cyclotron Laboratory
4004 Wesbrook Mall
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 2A3
Canada.
B.Sc. (U.B.C.) Ph.D. (Caltech)
phone: office: 604 222 7340
FAX: 604 222 1074
email: mrspi@triumf.ca
cc: Christine Trauttmansdorff
Barbara Conway, NSERC corporate secretary
NSERC Council Members
3 of 3