Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 15, 2003)
SPOR] THE BATTALIA nals entra ihinking we pretty m. ;e,” the Cardinals'Ke- approach to every ser: I one run and three hits -5 in six starts sincete Astros scored an aver Dotel and Billy Wap ting, with Wagnergei s, his 21 st in a row is fifth straight decisi ve hits in 3 2-3 ice defeating Pittsl Aug. 11. “They did every tier than we di rdinals manager It Russa said, night we’d come in \ lose three, but we’t t to find a way to page, and we will." 1 .ance Berkman tnpl! start the second as >red on Rick' lalgo’s sacrifice fly. a uston made it 2-0 in a rd when Redding da ’s single. nto a run-scoring doen ad a two-run single ini smus singled and Adr Opinion The Battalion Page 9 • Monday, September 15, 2003 The battle over textbooks ■ So-called weaknesses of evolution have scientific basis, shouldn’t he taught “O of the Cardinals ism ten hitless in ISat-ta gle Saturday. HaraL game. Biggio hasb irgh’s Jason Kendal fa lis year’s NL Centelii 20 years that haslal n September: Hoea . In September 11 1 Philadelphia eachW in upset it defense and anotk a hurry-up offenseji talftime. The final 1 ic* via quick-strike,fet a 55-yard pass . That leaves only d scoring drive, old. it was hard to tel! ■ Longhorns came it No. 6 and tk cks were supposed rans in their confere® . As a result, Test to No. 13 - s jumped into the pol 4. were pleased to uir schedule because! tional surge it gave i the season that» had before,” comet ithan Vasher said. “ this kind of a test." escended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that this is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known!” So said the wife of the Bishop of Worcester when she first heard Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately for her, the idea was destined to be as important as life itself. Evolution is the scientific tenet that says current life forms on Earth are products of primitive ancestors, and that forces such as nat ural selection and mutation are responsible for this descent. Today the Theory of Evolution is the organizing principle of biology, an eminent position only it deserves to hold. But some groups such as the Discovery Institute believe that other theories — their theories — better explain the ori- ins of life and have taken a sinister route to have their ideas accepted. They vant high school biology textbooks to include supposed “weaknesses” in :volution. In doing so, they aim to spoon-feed their ideology to impres- iionable young adults. In November, the Texas State Board of education will decide whether to support the revisions. To save science education in America, the board must >ay no. One of the Discovery Institute’s aims is to undermine the so-called icons of evolution, such as the peppered moths of ndustrial England. The argument is that since the photographs of the moths were “staged” (they were pinned to trees for the picture to be taken) that this discounts the experiment altogether. But how the photos were produced does not change the actual data, which is what the photos represent. The moths were pinned because it is absurd to expect a photographer to sit around and wait until two differently colored moths happen to land exactly side by side. A quick search on the Internet will show that the other criti cisms of the icons of evolution have been completely discredited f[ by scientists. The criticisms do not belong in textbooks. By attacking the primary examples used to teach students evolu tion, anti-evolution theorists hope to create gaps in the theory — gaps they can then fill with their own ideas. The Discovery Institute is a major supporter of the hypothesis if Intelligent Design, which seeks to replace evolution as the basic laradigm of science. ID is the belief that life on Earth was designed by a upernatural intelligence. Since there is no way to test this idea, ID is not a :redible proposition. If ID is a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, then scientists must use it, ike they do evolution, to devise experiments and interpret the data they collect, et, when Dr. George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington searched the scientific literature, he found several thousand papers on evolution but only seven for ID. Of these seven, not one described a scientific experiment concerning ID. n fact, not a single scientific result supporting the theory has been published in peer-reviewed science journals. The main argument for ID is the fallacious concept of “irreducible complex ly.” The idea was first mentioned in 1802, by Rev. William Paley. He wrote that if one came upon a watch in the middle of nowhere, it would ead one to conclude that a watchmaker must exist. So, the complex ty of living organisms proves that a Creator exists. Michael Belie repackaged Paley’s idea in his version of ‘irreducible complexity.” He said that a system is irre- Jucibly complex if it has several interacting parts that con- ribute to a basic function and if the removal of any one piece auses the system to stop working. However, complexity does not necessarily measure intelligence. The human genome, a blueprint for making the human body, is complex, but 50 percent of it is ing Saturday in illy a road game a 2), which is comi * lowly Duke, playing in Houstot o thousands of less another home _ ly since it will be Stadium instead of sual on-campus site, ’ve not lost back-te mes since 1999, so# istory of bouncing bai tgh losses,” said coaii rown, who lost ek for only the sea 10 tries at Texas. them to do the si I on "horns will if! lse ' ess “j ur| k” DNA that serves no purpose. DNA does not code for proteins, nor does it regulate ;enes; it is just there. An intelligent person would not design a blueprint where half of the lines, ingles and structures on the page meant nothing. Irreducible complexity is being used as a way to falsify evolution, or any minute part of it, and by limination, conclude design. Assuming one’s idea is correct by default is not convincing. ID support- irsrely on such negative arguments since they have no original research to support their conjecture. If the Discovery Institute truly wants ID to succeed, it needs to do research and produce real eyi- ’11 certainly have tit * ence ' n support of its theory. Until then, it should not complain that it is not receiving “fair” and balanced” coverage in science textbooks. Science textbooks must be reserved for true scientific heories. ID is simply a hypothesis, and evolution, deservedly, is the reigning biological paradigm. Midhat Farooqi is a senior genetics major. Students deserve to learn criticisms of evolutionary theory principles I n Washington, Georgia, Texas, New Mexico and in other education boards across the country, debate is heating up on whether to revise biology text books to include numerous recent scientific discoveries that leave large gaps in the Darwinian theory of evolution. The movement, spearheaded by the Discovery Institute, a non-profit think tank based in Seattle, has faced sharp con demnation from Darwinian evolutionists. The Texas State Board of Education will make its decision by November on whether to include textbook revi sions that incorporate weaknesses of evolution theory illuminat ed by scientific research. In order to provide American children with a meaningful education, the curriculum used in such education must be balanced and complete. The truth about life’s origins is the most important question fac ing humanity. With so much resting on this fundamental question, it behooves the scientific community to investigate all possible solutions, lest the scientists of tomorrow be led astray from sci ence’s original purpose — to seek truth. The push for textbook revisions is primarily the fruit of an explosion in knowledge of the living cell over the past 50 years — knowledge that Charles Darwin was not privy to when he formulated his Theory of Evolution in the mid 1800s. In Texas, the Discovery Institute is working to include specific criticisms of the “icons,” or cornerstones, of evolutionary theory, including Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings, the Miller-Urey experiment and the peppered moths in industrial England. If the primary examples used to teach students about evo lutionary theory are inaccurate, students deserve to know, which is exactly what the Discovery Institute is trying to do. The Discovery Institute is also at the forefront of a movement to advance a more accurate and increasingly embraced theory on the ori gins of life known as Intelligent Design. A growing field of scientists and scholars, skeptical of the sufficiency of Darwin’s explanation for life’s origins, is corning forward with their findings. Among them is biochemist Michael Behe, who in his book “Darwin’s Black Box,” questions how natural processes could have assembled the intricate structures found within living cells. He coined the term “irreducible complexity,” a feature of molecular machines that evolutionary theory cannot account for. This characteristic of cell systems, to use an overly simplistic analogy, can be illustrated by a basic mousetrap. There are five main pieces to a mousetrap: the catch, the spring, the holding bar, the ham mer and the wooden platform. If one of these pieces is missing or malformed, the mouse trap cannot perform its function — catching mice. Similarly, there are multiple components to every system within a cell, all of which must be present simultaneously for that mechanism to function. These systems — such as the bacterial flagellum, bacterial cilia, the mammalian blood clotting system, etc. — are irreducibly complex. Darwin’s ideas were years ahead of his time, but technology has caught up. Powerful microscopes and advancements in microbiology have revealed an overwhelmingly complex world of activity at the cellular level which bears the hallmarks of. Intelligent Design. Darwin himself in his “Origin of Species” conceded, “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possi bly have been fonned by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Mathematician William Dembski is another scholar weighing ^ in on the debate. In his book “The Design Inference,” ' Dembski points out the two criteria humans use to detect intelligent design in an object. When something is both highly improbable and retains a recognizable pattern, it is cor rectly inferred to be the product of intelligence. Thus, humans reason that the presidential likenesses on Mt. Rushmore are the handiwork of an intelligent creator, not of wind and erosion. If an object meets both these criteria, it is said to be encoded with information. DNA is the most information-rich entity in the known universe. Science in Darwin’s time could not begin to comprehend how complex the microbiological world is, let alone that life, in all its abundance, comes with tiny pre-assembly instructions. Everything in the human experience sug gests that information-rich systems are artifacts of intelligence; DNA is no exception. Throughout the history of science, powerful ideas have stirred up controversy. They incite a frenzy of voices from bullheaded defenders of the status quo, who try to stifle the growing accept ance of new ideas. The job of science is to examine all the evidence, and let it speak for itself. Even Darwin realized this, when in the 19th century, the turbulent reception his ideas received prompted him to reason that, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Let science take a reminder from its dear, departed friend and not exclude evidence supporting alternative theories to the origins of life. Scott Monk is a junior agronomy major. acuity should decide ay they deserve /n response to Sara Foley’s Sept. )ugh hopes for an i iason are gone for time since 2000, Tcp 13 column: championship chantf ! y dimmed Tk l»> Althou 9 h 1 enjoyed Ms. Foley’s fts squarely to win* «P inion ^ the recent pay ig 12 play, which <7?’ b , e ". ev ® h f ult ;- r.™ u , u ,h lately lost sight of what really mat- re a BCS bowl be* m . „ |s , he professors themS e| ve s h the BCS, it you r if a pay disparity exists, s not OK, hut itsIi n 0 ^ er W ords, if they feel that they as you ... finish I- ;an ma ( (e more mone y ( anc | w jth jt said receiver R 1 ' (n ore respect) elsewhere, they’ll go. s, who set the scW "he probable reason for the pay receptions record ^ aises is that Texas A&M is having n on the yardage malt rou b| e attracting and keeping top ee Mock was 21-of ) tiotch professors. I was told that yards with three touti nany teachers who come here ind no interceptions; leave after just one year. >nd start. He was e# ! Put yourself in a new professor’s ough that redshirtfr^ ihoes: y° u ’ ve been livin g P 00r for nee Young never | '^bably five fo 10 years, may have up. g, who was dazzlin? debut against hi State, likely will get Rice, especially ;o according to Mot' hink we’ll come ( gainst them,” he said’ lot of debt, have your Ph.D., are ow world-recognized in your field, nd looking for a job. A&M is offer- g you $11,000 less than niversity of Texas-Austin. egardless of the perks, which Would you choose? UT or a loss of 000 over a 40-year career! I say pay the professors what they’re worth on the open market. Michael Martin Doctoral student TS needs to serve students, not itself Let me just say that l am glad that I am about to graduate from Texas A&M University since departments such as Transportation Services make it hard to want to stay at this University. I want to know who’s bright idea it was to continue to charge more and more for parking and garage spaces and continue to decrease the benefits of having them. I had a parking garage space for two years when l lived on campus. The main reason I got it was to be able to leave and come back at my convenience. Maybe you could start letting anyone park in the 24- hour reserved spaces that are vacant the majority of the time. You thought changing the name of PTTS would improve your image. The only way to improve your image is to improve service. Start listening to the students. It’s about time MAIL CALL Transportation Services realizes that it is here to serve the students and not itself. Students are already being forced to face fee increases, tuition increases and an overall bad economy. Transportation Services should start to show the students that our money is going to a worth while organization. Karl Ramsey Class of 2003 Behavior unbecoming of Aggies Texas A&M and its surrounding cities are known as one of the friend liest places around. This not only stems from our “Howdy” tradition, but from the way we treat our fellow Aggies and guests of Aggieland. During the last football game against Utah, it came to my and sev eral others’ attention that several Aggies are not aware of this tradition. As current and former students of the greatest University there is, it is our duty to pass on to new Aggies this tradition. It is not proper protocol to yell at fellow Aggies and guests of Kyle Field in the stands to “Take your friggin’ hat off!” or anything else relat ing to tradition. It is however the Aggie way to say “Please uncover.” If they do not, perhaps they are a guest of Aggieland, in which case, it is not at all expected of them to have to partake in our traditions. As good Ags, it is essential that everyone practice the good bull of being polite Ags. All Aggies and guests are wel come in Aggieland and to Kyle Field and should always be made to feel welcome. Rebecca Clemons Class of 2002 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or less and include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net wtisniTMNM- ooncrrjvnrN© m
