And it's not the one equating modern biology with quasi-religious views of creation, no matter how often the media try to portray it that way. Yes, real scientists recognize that there are gaps in the theory of evolution, and argue over details. And now a bunch of them plan to work together to more fully "understand how life emerged from the chemical soup of early Earth, and how this might have happened on distant planets," according to the Boston Globe's report of an ambitious new Harvard project, the "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative." No, it's not a coincidence that this massive, multi-million-dollar, multi-disciplinary approach is gearing up as the latest assault on "Darwinism" heads to court.
The initiative begins amid increasing controversy over the teaching of evolution, prompted by proponents of "intelligent design," who argue that even the most modest cell is too complex, too finely tuned, to have come about without unseen intelligence.
.... Like intelligent design, the Harvard project begins with awe at the nature of life, and with an admission that, almost 150 years after Charles Darwin outlined his theory of evolution in the Origin of Species, scientists cannot explain how the process began.
Now, encouraged by a confluence of scientific advances -- such as the discovery of water on Mars and an increased understanding of the chemistry of early Earth -- the Harvard scientists hope to help change that.
"We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
The AP fumbled when condensing the Globe's story, adding a reference to the "theory of intelligent design" as though it were possibly an actual scientific theory legitimately on a par with evolutionary biology. (Sorry, I know I've hammered on this before, and once again add my disclosure about being a board member of an ACLU chapter involved in the Dover case.) The Globe didn't make that mistake. And for more an intelligent and respectful discussion on the lack of a clash between religion and science ("Sanctity is not an excuse for stupidity") check Leon Wieseltier in The New Republic.