The science of Intelligent Design
\nI wasn't surprised to read a column both critical and ignorant of the basic tenets of Intelligent Design. Mr. Schmidt's column ("The New Creationism," Aug 24.) was a careful and well-rehearsed repetition of everything his professors have taught him to believe. His mockery of those with commitments both to scientific inquiry and to supernatural belief only demonstrates his lack of respect for either. I'm afraid (Intelligent Design) is not simply a few religious zealots astonished by an eyeball, and the columnist would be well-served by a thorough reading of Behe, Dembski and others.\nBriefly put, Behe argues that certain biological or biochemical systems are unable to be reduced into their component parts while still providing some benefit to the evolving species. The bacterial flagellum is a common example. With something on the order of 40 different components, this system (crucial to the movement of bacteria) will cease to function immediately upon removing any one of the components. Where current evolutionary theory fails is in this sort of situation. Is it to be supposed that all the components of flagella just randomly leapt together within one bacterial generation and proved to be so useful that natural selection continued to select for this mechanism? Or, is it to be supposed that over countless generations, natural selection continued to select useless sections of incomplete flagella with the final result in mind? \nThese "irreducibly complex" systems are only one problem for current evolutionary theory, among others. There remains the unanswerable epistemic problem for evolutionary theory: How can we trust our cognitive faculties to reliably produce true and abstract beliefs when simple instinct could suffice for the survival of the species?\nUnfortunately, Mr. Schmidt has not offered answers to these questions. The scientific community at large remains closed to inquiry that challenges its twin religious philosophies of humanism and naturalism, and I would compare their reaction to the behavior of the Inquisitors, except that I kind of like Catholics.\n
Dan Julian \n
IU staff
Exploring the existence of ID
\nAnd to think that I thought positivism was dead! Bryan Schmidt's article ("The New Creationism," Aug. 24) reminded me that the leap of faith of the materialistic scientist is often as strong as those they attempt to deride for being "religious." Bryan makes several claims in his article that are not up to date with current scholarship. He suggests that Intelligent Design (ID) can never be considered within the scientific realm because ID fails the definition of what is good theory -- the ability to design an experiment to prove the theory false.\nIn reality, it would be quite easy to prove ID false by showing what the mechanisms are behind some of the "irreducible complexities" mentioned in the theory. On the other hand, is there an experiment to show that the metanarrative of evolution can be proven false? I know that many tenants of evolution have been shown to be false and new theories (e.g. punctuated equilibrium) just keep coming. \nID is not just an alternative to evolution, but an alternative to naturalism/materialism. It makes the claim that a naturalistic/materialistic explanation cannot adequately account for the many amazing characteristics/features of our universe (e.g. universal constants, genetic code). The fundamental question in evolution is not whether it happened, but how it happened, and whether it is blind, random, unguided and purposeless. These are claims that are not scientifically supported but are just metaphysics masquerading as science.\nMany of my friends who are nonreligious also find it very reasonable to believe that "this didn't just happen by chance." Apparently, the scientific evidence provided by Intelligent Design was enough to convince Anthony Flew, a prominent atheist scholar of the last half of the 20th century, to change his views regarding materialism. There will be a distinguished speaker on campus providing a lecture entitled "Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God?" on October 20th (http://ingradiv.com/iugradiv.asp for details) . The university is a great place for open thought, and I hope those curious about the issue will make an effort to attend and engage in more thoughtful discussion.\n
Steven W. Bradley\n
Doctoral Student \n
Kelley School of Business
RAISE awareness of sexual assault
\nI just read the editorial ("A Dirty Shame," Aug 25.) by Peter Chen, and I have a response for him and readers. Maybe this program from RAISE is closer to toilet humor than raising awareness, but unlike Chen's last line states, I think we need to leave penises in the argument. \nThe joke associated with its message is that men think with their penises when they think about sex, and I think the method RAISE is using is thoughtful and powerful. Yes, the sign is then urinated on, but it gives men something to think about during one of the most private acts they perform during the day. And when was the last time men sat around together talking about rape and sexual assault, let alone having that conversation with women? \nWe do need to focus more on the potential assailants than the potential victims. After all, it is never a woman's fault that she has been raped -- it's always the man's (fault) who has raped her.\n
Elisabeth Crum\n
Senior
The truth behind textbooks
\nI enjoyed reading your article and editorial regarding textbooks. It is a sore subject indeed, and not only for the students who have to pay for them. As the faculty authors who were interviewed all mention, the "business" of writing textbooks is a tough one. Textbooks are regarded as less than scholarly at tenure and promotion time (this may or may not be fair, but it certainly is the prevalent attitude). They are written, often, in response to a need -- either they are meant to fill a hole in the published literature, or they replace what the author has found to be a seriously poor field of competitors. Authors are invariably poorly paid in comparison with the effort required to produce the books. Textbooks may not be written exclusively for the glory, but that is still mostly what authors get out of them.\nTextbooks do, however, reflect one important achievement: They tend to be written by first-rate teachers and scholars, and in this sense, having your professor be the author of the textbook you are using is a pretty good indication that you are studying with the real thing. And not all faculty profit from the sale of the book to their own students. In my department, J. Peter Burkholder, who is the new author on the masthead of the best-known music history textbook, "A History of Western Music" (J. Peter. Burkholder, Claude Palisca and Donald J. Grout), as well as of its anthology ("The Norton Anthology of Western Music") and the study guide that goes with the whole package, does assign the book to his students, and it is also used in other classes in the School of Music, but the proceeds of all sales on the Bloomington campus go into an account that funds the yearly undergraduate writing prize given by our department, the Austin B. Caswell Award. \n
Massimo Ossi\n
Associate Professor and Chair\n
Department of Musicology
The Onion gives IDS bad breath
\nI don't know whose bright idea it was to include The Onion in Monday's edition of the IDS, but in my opinion, it was a bad idea. This is not a news organ, it is a piece of filth masquerading as a newspaper. A college newspaper with the reputation and history that the IDS enjoys does not need to employ this type of garbage to entertain its readers. \n
Maynard Raggio\n
IU staff
Insincerity of Republicans
\nIn answer to Brian Stewart's "Founders' Footprints" column (Aug. 31), I will admit, right off the bat, that I don't know that much about John Roberts. However, the fact that the Bush White House is so strongly behind him makes me nervous. It's a case of "once bitten, twice shy" considering some of the other nominees/appointees Bush has thrown his weight behind, including Gonzales (you know, the guy who said the Geneva Convention was "quaint") and John "Let's Intimidate Subordinates" Bolton. Hopefully, no matter what happens, the next member of the Supreme Court will try to keep the legislative and the executive from leaving boot marks on the Constitution.\nThat being said, I have a few qualms I need to air with Mr. Stewart's remarks about the Supreme Court's role in government and its future. First off, back before shows like "Law & Order" existed, I doubt many people knew exactly what their rights were when they got arrested. Granted, sometimes it seems unfair that suspected criminals have so many protections, but I feel that making the police follow strict rules when it comes to evidence and prosecution makes cases stronger. And besides, if we didn't have protections for criminals and convicts, what would keep us from going "Abu Ghraib" on prisoners?\nSecond, the Court ordered prayer and God to not be mentioned in public schools. If you are at a private school, you can have prayer and read the Bible. The job of public schools is to educate everyone to read, write and do math. Leave religion and faith to the family and the church.\nThirdly, while free speech was the issue with the Larry Flynt case, I do believe it related more to parody than pornography. But still, to hijack a quote from the NRA, "You can have my porn when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."\nFourthly, as long as a sexual relationship is between consenting adults, the state has no right to interfere. It also has no right to tell people what they should and shouldn't do to their own bodies. Finally, you want to talk about political gamesmanship? That is what most conservatives are all about. The Republicans have the majority of the House and Senate; they (also) have the White House, and most of the remaining Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. So why are Republicans and Conservatives still saying that Liberals and Democrats are ruining things? You're saying it's unfair the Democrats are trying to consolidate power in the Supreme Court, while you're also talking about how the conservatives should control everything. Do you see the irony?\n
Terrence Dellinger\n
Senior
'Madness' shouldn't be glorified
\nIn response to the many articles written lately praising the "Midnight Madness" event, I feel compelled to write a short letter of dissent. \nMelanie Payne, a University official, is quoted in one of the articles as saying the event is "something that's fun, healthy and social ..." In my opinion, there is nothing fun, healthy or social about supporting a corporation whose average full-time employee struggles to meet the federal poverty line, whose female employees earn five to 15 percent less than their male counterparts, whose employees have to pay upwards of $1,000 for a deductible on the company's healthcare plan, and whose subcontracted apparel workers earn as little as three cents an hour for the goods they produce.\nIn creating an event such as Midnight Madness, the University is telling the thousands of workers in sweatshop factories across the world, the thousands of women suing Wal-Mart for sexual discrimination, the hundreds of environmental groups suing Wal-Mart for its irresponsibleness, that it doesn't care, that it is too busy hunting for the smallest price and doesn't care who it steps on along the way. \nAs an institution of higher learning, the University should have some semblance of morals that tell it not to support such degradation; by shipping its students to Wal-Mart, it is encouraging them to buy into a culture of super-consumerism that has no regard for the welfare of others. Instead of bussing students to Wal-Mart for last-minute school supplies, perhaps the University could act upon its supposed morals and create an event that supports the wonderful array of local, ethical businesses that our town has to offer. \n
Philip Shelton\n
Sophomore
