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