Check out more Free-For-All at kansan.com
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
OPINION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006
WWW.KANSAN.COM
OUR OPINION
Criticism of science taken out of context
Three KU Medical Center professors have signed a petition that called for skepticism of the theory of evolution.
The signatures come from James Harbrecht, clinical assistant professor of cardiology; Gregory Ator, associate professor of head and neck surgery; and Jeanne Drisko, clinical assistant professor of alternative medicine. More than 500 scientists have signed the petition, which started on the Internet in 2001.
While the signatures may seem a blow to supporters of evolution in the scientific community and another knock on Kansas' already tarnished scientific reputation, it really is just healthy criticism.
We applaud scientists who acknowledge the theory of evolution isn't perfect. If scientists don't question the theory of evolution, or any theory, there is no way to gather evidence for or against it or to attempt to prove or disprove it.
The petition does not support or mention alternative theories to evolution. It simply states, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
But more importantly, let's not twist this petition to include a victory for intelligent design supporters.
PAGE 7A
Of course examination should be encouraged. That's what scientists do. But intelligent design isn't science. There couldn't be a petition like this for that theory, because there is no evidence to be examined.
Intelligent design isn't provable or unprovable. It can't be tested with experiments or evidence. In fact, intelligent design supporters in the scientific community only attack the theory of evolution
Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, testified on behalf of intelligent design at the trial of a Pennsylvania school board that tried to add a disclaimer on textbooks that said there were holes in the theory of
Issue: Scientific skepticism of evolution
Stance: Close examination of evolution doesn't necessitate support of intelligent design
evolution and mentions intelligent design as an alternative theory.
He said intelligent design was testable. He testified at the trial:
"In Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum — or any equally complex system — was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven."
But if the process failed, only evolution would be disproved. There wouldn't be any evidence other than that Darwinism didn't explain it.
No scientific theory should stay if it can't stand up to criticisms or questioning from the scientific community. The theory of evolution is a long-established, universally used theory for explaining life on this planet by science. But that doesn't mean scientists should just accept it how it is, that they shouldn't examine it.
And it certainly doesn't mean we should look at untestable, unprovable theories that couldn't stand up to the idea of this petition.
Like the petition says, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
— John Jordan for the editorial board
Free for All Call 864-0500
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
This is the first time I've seen a TV in a fridge, and all I can say is that I'm at a loss for words. I can't believe it.
not cool.
My friends passed out at 9 o'clock, wait, and it's only 9 o'clock. That takes some skill.
My friend left this girl at a gas station in the middle of nowhere and just came back to the dorm without her. Should he go get her?
If Julian Wright did our jump balls, he would pick God's nose.
Texas referees are bullshit.
□
The guy at McDonald's told me I don't need the straw. I'll tell him if I don't need the straw.
72760
Who would win in a fight:
a grizzly bear or a lion?
Discuss.
So you know what the only thing more boring than watching the K-State basketball team on TV is? Listening to the K-State basketball team on radio. I think I'm gonna go fall asleep now.
Why did they call Julian Wright The Raptor?
You know how there's don't mess with Texas? There's also don't mess with Kansas, either. Hello!
Standing upright sucks.
Did anyone else in the senior class receive an order form from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for class rings, because I know a bunch of seniors did and that is
Kelli Sparks/KANSAN
Jonathan Kealing, editor
864-4854 or ikealing@kansan.com
Joshua Bickel, managing editor
864-4854 or hickel@kansan.com
TALK TO US
Evolution isn't godless
Note Karlin, managing editor
884-8544 or nkartlin@earman.com
Jeason Shad, opinion editor
884-4294 or jashand@earman.com
Patrick Rose, associate opinion editor
864-4924 or pross@kansan.com
▼ COMMENTARY
Arl Ben, business manager
864-4462 or adddirector@kansan.com
Sarah Connolly, sales manager
884-4462 or adsales@kansan.com
"Evolution" is not a dirty word. It has been at the center of so much recent controversy, that it conjures up thoughts of political and religious debate much more frequently than it is associated with what it actually is—a theory of a process embraced by scientists as a reliable and well supported explanation of the natural world.
Malecon Gibson, general manager, news advice
804-7867 or bikaner@kbanan.com
Jennifer Weaver, sales and marketing adviser 854-7680 or jweaver@kansn.com
Smart Hurricane Relief:
Bringing tourism back to New Orleans...
will bring money back to New Orleans.
But because the apples and oranges of religion and science continue to go head-to-head in Kansas and elsewhere, "evolution" is being stripped of its scientific definition and instead is treated as synonymous with "godlessness." This misunderstanding just adds fuel to the fire of controversy. This substitution couldn't be more wrong and more undeserved.
Unlike evolution, gravity and heliocentric haven't been making headlines and haven't faced any recent opposition. What's the difference? It's all in the timing. Evolutionary theory is newer to the world than the others. Despite its established standing among scientists, evolution is still working its way into everyday vernacular and a mainstream comfort zone.
The theory of evolution simply states that organisms change over time. More specific facets of evolutionary biology seek to explain the details of this process in various organisms, under various circumstances, and over various time scales. Associated theories, like natural selection, offer explanations of the mechanisms that drive the process of evolution.
Other scientific theories that strayed from religious descriptions of the universe also faced social opposition, but eventually became so well-established that we now accept them at face value. We would be hard-pressed to find someone today who argues that the earth is the center of the universe, but Kansas is loaded with people who take issue with evolution. This is mostly because this scientific description of a natural process is mistaken as a blatant challenge to faith. Once we recognize that evolution is a theory established in science and that dealing with it in a religious context is simply inappropriate, the controversy will die down and evolution will take its place as a conventional explanation of the way things work. I swear.
Like other scientific theories, such as gravity and a heliocentric solar system, the theory of evolution was conceived to explain phenomena observed in nature. But when novel explanations based on observations and experiments challenge ideas based instead on long-held but scientifically untestable musings, there is bound to be opposition. People don't like being told they're wrong, often to the point of being blindly defensive of their own beliefs.
Scientists don't dispute evolution. We continue to explore its details and its mechanisms through the process of hypothesis
testing, but the theory of evolution itself has stood the test of time. We continue to find observational and experimental support for it, while alternative ideas have not satisfactorily displaced it. Like other theories that once shook the world but are now taken for granted, evolution is on firm ground within the scientific community.
So why is something so simple as the idea that life changes over time mistaken for the battle cry of heathes?
HEATHER YORK
opinion@hansan.com
■ York is a Lake Geneva, Wisc., Ph.D. candidate in ecology and evolutionary biology.
GUEST COMMENTARY
In the comfort of his peers, retired professor of psychology Leonard Magruder paraded a series of news articles in front of a small crowd at the Signs of Life bookstore Thursday, making sarcastic jabs at any evolutionists' expense. He used terms like "evolution thought-police" and referred to any anti-intelligent design article as "bad and very sad news." His mantra was, "There are huge gaps in evolution." I found gaps somewhere else, however, in Magruder's speech.
ID advocate misinforms masses
Magruder continuously used information to his advantage, without providing the whole picture. For example, he gave out an entire list of names of scientists and Nobel Prize winners who had raised questions about evolution. He failed, however, to say that these people do not, in fact, support intelligent design. Apparently, Magruder does not understand the difference. Some of the scientists on Magruder's list have even spoken out against it.
All in all, Magruder's speech shed an unforgiving light on intelligent design and its supporters. His quotes were taken out of context; his inference method is a desperate masquerade; and his conspiracy theories seemed ridiculous. Thank you, Magruder, for reminding me why I think intelligent design is useless and ludicrous.
molecular biology concur with Darwinism" and that he believes "life descended from one common ancestor." Another scientist on the list, physicist Alan Guth, said at the same conference that "there is no need to invoke supernatural forces to explain the universe or even its origin." There are other instances of people on Magruder's list that completely discredit intelligent design. I don't understand why he would use them as examples.
In a 2000 conference debating evolution and design "science," Nobel laureate Christian de Duve said "the discoveries of
Another point of Magruder's speech was that intelligent design was not the new creation science. He maintained that "creation scientists had an agenda, which was to defend the literal meaning of the Bible. But that is not what I.D. is about." Intelligent design is a theory raised from inside the scientific community, he said. Magruder claimed that intelligent design "is totally free from any religious entanglements"; it merely points out the gaps in evolution and allows students to "make their own inferences" about who the intelligent designer is.
made, unless kids believe that Santa Claus created life.
If you listen to Magruder, you would think the world is a conspiracy against intelligent design. He said that "Intelligent design supporters are scientists, but the media and KU don't want us to know that." He also maintains that "KU refuses to talk about intelligent design because they saw there is nothing to debate."
Come on. Obviously, there is only one real inference to be
I hate to tell you, Magruder, but we have discussed intelligent design in three of my classes. Apparently Magruder does not understand that no one wants to discuss intelligent design because it's not worth the time and effort.
Cassie Gentry is a Piper freshman in English.
But maybe two years from now we can lay off the righteous indignation and the ubiquitous medal count. Maybe we can let the snowboarders have their fun, the figure skaters have a cupcake, and the hockey players have more than a day off. Maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, we can again let them be games.
I'm not naive enough to believe that the Olympics can solve the problems of the world, or that a society attuned more to salary caps and drug suspensions for its sports news can change overnight. Sports long ago turned into big business at every level and age group, and the ranks of amateurism could not hold out indefinitely against those for whom profit matters more than joy, market share more than beauty, winning more than victory.
Scarrow is Humboldt senior in history.
Sport success not in the medals
RYAN SCARROW opinion@kansan.com
COMMENTARY
I realize that I probably took the Olympics a little more seriously than most people. I have to believe it's a freak genetic trait. I honestly kept track of how many hours of NBC's network broadcasts I watched during 17 days. But, being as this was the eighth Olympics I've watched — er, obsessed over — I thought I'd at least put those hundred hours to good use and share a few thoughts on sportsmanship in modern society.
For starters, just stop. Stop hyping athletes you never cared about before. Stop making jokes about the two-man luge. You cannot possibly come up with anything original. Stop the inane discussion of whether figure skating and curling are sports — if poker and bass fishing can get weeks of television airtime, then we've already expanded the threshold of athleticism. And please, for the love of Tonya Harding, stop taking it all so damn seriously.
In the weeks leading up to the opening ceremony in Turin, Italy, I counted at least six magazine covers with Bode Miller's mug. Some of them were already planned because of his status as the first American overall World Cup champion in 20 years, while others were put together after his (as it turns out, anti-climactic) "60 Minutes" admission about being hung over at the start of a race. That made Miller America's "bad boy" for the games, but he failed to medal in all five events and was decisively branded a flop by the same machine that put him on those covers. Remarkably, after all of the interviews and features, nobody in the media seemed to grasp or even listen to Bode's core message: Medals are simply one objective standard for success, and success is whatever you make it to be. In other words, stop sucking the fun out of my sport.
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
Maximum Length: 500 word limit
Include: Author's name; class, hometown (student); position (faculty member/staff); phone number (will not be published)
EDITORIAL BOARD
Also: The Kansan will not print guest columns that attack a reporter or another columnist.
Jonathan Kealing, Johnhuus Bickel, Nate Karlin,
Jason Shaad, Patrick Ross,Ty Beaver, John
Ojordan, Malinda Osborne
SUBMIT TO
111 Stauffer-Flint Hall
1435 Yahawk Bvd.
Lawrance, KS 60540
(785) 884-4810, opinion@kansan.com
SUBMISSIONS
General questions should be directed to the editor at editor at kanan.com.
The Kansan welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni.
The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions.
For any questions, call Jason 'Shaad' or Patrick Ross at 864-4810 or e-mail opinion@kansan.com.
LETTER GUIDELINES
Maximum Length: 200 word limit
Include: Author's name and telephone number; class, hometown (student); position (faculty member/ staff); phone number (will not be published)