Letters to the Editor
cooner
Published Letters: 20 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Maybe ...
[Read the article: Intelligent designer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, I very much doubt it, but I'll grant them this: MAYBE Intelligent Designers are onto something. MAYBE in a few years they'll stumble across some key piece of evidence that brings the theory of evolution crumbling down. As ID'ers will admit, new insight has in the past come from seemingly unlikely places, often from people vilified by mainstream scientists of the day.
So sure, they're certainly welcome to go on studying and researching and writing papers and maybe even getting some of them published in credible journals. That's their right and their duty if they're serious scientists.
But UNTIL that breakthrough happens, until they've been subjected to the necessary critical review and proven their theories scientifically apt, Intelligent Design doesn't belong in public education. Otherwise from a scientific standpoint we'd have to give "equal time" to any crackpot idea that comes along and can hire a few "expert scientists" to vouch for it. If ID wants to be respected, it has to take the time and the effort to work at it and prove themselves, just like the Darwinists have.
(And that's not even taking into account ID's religious motivations ...)
-
Geoffrey Spear's response to ... me!
[Read the article: Intelligent designer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Geoffrey,
I may have misstated myself, or at least put too much emphasis on one aspect of the debate.
I agree it's incredibly unlikely Intelligent Design would ever emerge as true science, as it has practically nothing to do with the scientific method. I agree that part of ID's problem is that it shuts off science by meeting any unanswered question with a simple deadend answer of "the Creator made it that way) rather than inspiring further study as science should. I also agree that pretty much the soul purpose of ID (as evidenced by even a casual look into its biggest financial supporters) is just an excuse to slip Creationism into schools while nibbling away at public perception's view of evolution.
My point was that even *IF* ID were (or rather, one day proved to be) a legitimate theory ... which is a highly debatable point, of course ... that still doesn't mean it should be shoehorned into public schools like the IDers want. For example, there are plenty of speculative theories in cosmology (quantum physics, strings, possible alternate realities, etc.) that to my knowledge aren't generally required to be covered in public school. Science education focuses on theories that are already well-supported by years of research and scrutiny. ID, even in a best-case scenerio, isn't that.
Intelligent Design is not science (at least, doesn't appear to be) and I agree it should be scrutinized and attacked so it can be seen for what it is and finally taken off the shelf, as it were. My only concern is when science proponents attack it too harshly in the public arena, they only help foster ID's self-made image as a poor, misunderstood field that's being vilified and suppressed by "the establishment," and drums up sympathy among the public ... which in this case is as important an arena as the courts are.
That's my point and my concern ... otherwise I completely agree with you. Go Go Evolution!
-
Arnold: Center to Right
[Read the article: Arnold's big flameout]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]California can certainly use a bit of reform. But it's a bit disingenuous to suggest he's just a poor guy who let his swagger get in the way of his honest, well-meaning reform ticket.
Two years ago, Arnold campaigned as a centrist, willing to work with both parties in a non-partisan way to do what needed to be done. And for awhile, he seemed to work that way. But then something happened ... Arnold got the whiff of an Amendment to allow foreign-born citizens to run for President (however unlikely that is in reality), and at that point made a conscious decision to ingratiate himself with the Republican party in the hopes of earning a nomination.
Of course, that meant compromising whatever centrist, non-partisan veneer he'd had. Now he had to on the attack, casting Democrats and liberals as the enemy with his special election propositions, cutting off any hope of compromise. He took on the labor unions, bane of the Grand Old Party, but said nothing about the corporate donors Republicans rely on. Last month he vetoed a legislative marriage bill, snubbing many moderates and liberals and gays who had voted for him earlier, because the Party wouldn't allow him to do anything otherwise.
If Arnold had stuck with the more moderate leadership he claimed to start with and worked at hammering out reform with a more slow, deliberate compromise, he probably could have avoided this whole special election fiasco, kept his political reputation much more intact, and -- perhaps, even -- might have helped to craft some truly helpful legislation by now.
-
Marital status
[Read the article: Debbie does Washington]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Objectively, I have to admit I'm curious about what kind of research Brownback's panelists are citing when they suggest that pornography "had been shown to increase the risk of divorce" and "decrease marital intimacy."
Isn't it just as likely that people in marriages that are lacking intimacy or are headed down the path towards divorce for unrelated reasons, would be more likely to resort to using pornography?
This would hardly be the first time someone confused causation and correlation while trying to make a judgement about something they already had an agenda in mind for.
-
V-Chips Ahoy
[Read the article: Idiot boxers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What really annoys me is that we went through all this "decency on television" thing ten or fifteen years ago, and the final resolution was to spend tons of money installing V-chips into almost every newly-manufactured television, so that people could police their own television in their on household for content.
Now that the V-chips are everywhere, it seems none of the people who fought for them can be bothered to figure out how to turn them on, so they want to police what everyone else is allowed to watch in order to preserve their own limited world-view.
That, or I guess they just can't trust themselves not to watch that new episode of CSI.