A couple of friends have sent me a recent New York Times article reporting on the overturn of long-established "fact" of physiology. For over a century lactic acid, which causes the burning sensation we all feel in our muscles after strenuous exercise, has been considered a waste product. However, new research has shown that it is in fact fuel for those very muscles. That fact by itself does not have much to do with intelligent design, but the article's description of the researcher's struggle sounded awfully familiar.
While the situation here is not completely analogous to the design debate, it points out how easy it is for theories to become thought of as facts on the basis of very little evidence. According to the Times' piece, the notion of lactic acid as a waste product came primarily from a crude experiment performed by Nobel laureate Otto Myerhof. While the only firm conclusion that could properly be drawn from Myerhof's experiment was that lactic acid is present in stimulated muscles under anaerobic conditions, he went on to also develop the hypothesis that the acid is a waste product. This seemed reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that it soon became accepted as truth. When Dr. George Brooks of Cal-Berkeley began to perform research that demonstrated that tired muscles are burning lactic acid, not producing it, he found it difficult both to get funding for his work and to get his results published.
I think that this article could be taken in a couple of ways, but I have decided to be encouraged by it since Dr. Brooks was eventually able to publish his findings and overturn the received doctrine. I also find it a handy reminder that no amount of being convinced that I am right will make it so. I just hope that it is such a reminder for my opponents in this debate as well.
