I think the question is, “Is the jury still out or not?”

Lets not miss that.

Great rhetoric, by the way. I couldn’t have obfuscated better myself.

Samwise, at 8:32 am EST on November 9, 2005

Obfuscation, indeed

Very good with words, Mr. Galef is, but science is obviously way off his turf. Evolution may be obvious, since we are different from our parents and mutation is just the way things work, but there is a great deal of debate, even among the evolutionists, about the processes involved, and EVIDENCE is required for every “scientific” statement. Should we insist upon “Unintelligent Design?” Ladies and gentlemen, where are our brains? There is nothing to fear from simply considering alternative theories.

Have a happy day!

Cal, at 9:13 am EST on November 9, 2005

Designed to please

Intelligent Design has NO place in a science classroom, nor in a scientific discussion. It belongs in a literature class since it can neither be proved nor disproved. Intelligent Design is a matter of faith, not science. Science can no longer exist with any clarity in the state of Kansas, and all of its graduates should be questioned as to the soundness of their learning.

Arthur Ide, PhD, at 10:49 am EST on November 9, 2005

Oh, my

The essay is not only funny, but exactly on point.

In earlier times, those who gain their power and lucre by exploiting the supernatural made exactly the afore-mentioned arguments against science.

Now, there is an entire pseudoscientific-industrial complex out there denying basic scientific facts.

And the sad thing is the cloaking of so much religious claptrap in the robes of testable science.

Evolution is no more a theory than is gravity, another apostasy that the fearful zealots once derided as invisible and contrary to the supernatural beliefs that succor them, and in many cases line their wallets.

Hans Laetz, Law student at Ventura College of Law, at 12:50 pm EST on November 9, 2005

We Can’t Stand For That!

I read Professor Galef’s treatise about the academic implications of teaching Intelligent Design, sent it to a few friends, and then used Trillian to explore several additional implications with those friends. Thus the development and dissemination of knowledge ... great minds – the academic intelligentcia — exploring ideas together ... in this case, examining the possible consequences of a great theory like Intelligent Design. Oh my, it was a heady experience.

Subsequently, I read Gary’s critique and felt incredibly ashamed. First, I was embarrassed that I failed to recognize the weakness of Mr. Galef’s arguments ... as Gary did so accurately. And, second, I was equally embarrassed to know that “[by disagreeing with Intelligent Design I was] insinuating that those who think that there may be a higher being than ourselves are ignorant bumpkins ...”

I came to my senses ... and now I completely agree with Gary that “This kind of ‘humor’ was low for someone who is supposed to teach people how to think critically.”

On another subject – and, of course, my input is always personal – I was fired last year from a faculty position at a small, fairly mediocre, private university that does not have a tenure system. Personally, it was no big deal. On the other hand, I think it was a very big deal insofar as the role and responsibility of faculty members at a university is concerned. I had been a full-time faculty member at this university for four years, and I have more than forty years of full-time college and university teaching experience altogether.

And why was I fired? I’m fairly certain it was because I exhibit the unfortunate combination of (1) not being inclined to suffer fools lightly and (2) being inclined to write satirical essays. Frankly, I am amazed that as the character of university personnel – both faculty and administrators – has evolved over the years, the number and proportion of uninteresting, humorless individuals has increased significantly. Indeed, I can just see Gary, incensed at Jonathan Swift’s modest proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html), firing off a letter to the Dean asking if she knew one of her faculty members advocated that the Irish poor should eat their children ... of course after breast-feeding them for twelve months, at which time they would weigh an average of twenty-eight pounds. No doubt the Dean would share Professor Swift’s essay with a psychiatrist to confirm that he is both mentally unstable and a threat to society.

Writing good satire is not easy. One wishes to push the cusp of “acceptability” just about as far as one can – as almost all great humorists do – all the while (1) making things “believable,” (2) making a relevant point, and (3) fooling some of the readers all of the time and all of the readers some of the time. It’s a tricky business and sometimes, even with the best of intentions, it turns out to be sophomoric. I thought Mr. Galef’s essay was just a bit sophomoric ... but, nevertheless, wonderfully outrageous. And he made an important point.

Okay, I’ve said enough about satire. Now how can I write a sentence that includes both “Gary” and my “not being willing to suffer fools lightly?”

RWH, at 1:04 pm EST on November 9, 2005

Today, I’m ashamed to be an intellectual. I absolutely cannot believe that there is no one else out there who is willing to step and say that academics should behave better than was exhibited in this article. In fact, those who do step up to the mic feel free to behave even more crudely than the author, himself.

Certainly, these similar arguments were made by advocates of religion...generations ago. Certainly, many of these people did so to line their own pockets and to frighten the populace...generations ago. But does that justify the same behavior by the academy today? Evidently, many people think that poor behavior in the past by theologians means that academics have their poor behavior now.

Some will say that evolution is as immutable as gravity. No one has been disputing that point. (red herring, please?) The dispute that we are discussing...the case at hand...is whether or not it ruins a student’s complete education to have a sentence or two of theological content in a science textbook and tell them that, if they want to think about it more, then can look somewhere else.

If you’re saying that ruins a student’s education, by that logic, then we should never mention anything in science class besides the content. No talk of families. That waters down the course. No talk of other classes. They are irrelevant. No combined well-rounded education where courses come together into a beautifully-woven tapestry of education and critical thought. Science is sacred. Science stands alone above all others. Science is infallible. Science is.....our religion?

I’m ashamed to be an intellectual today. I expected to see other “educated” individuals ready to jump to the defense of critical thought and invite others to further prove what they believe in. I guess that I was wrong. Academics are no better now than theologians were then....immersed in ego conflict because a core principle of their universe...their religion...was questioned.

Both of these ideas can coexist. It is not academically sacriligeous. The academy needs to get over itself and accept the point. Once, the academy and religion peacefully coexisted. Why is it so hard now?

Gary, at 8:47 am EST on November 10, 2005

bumpkins and flagellants

Oh, yeah, we all MUST teach intelligent design. Also, we MUST pray at the beginning of each class, not just in kiddy school, but in college as well. In grad school too. What kind of prayer? of course, something designed by intelligent design defenders, who else?

After the prayer, we should all leave the students watching episodes of “Gillingan’s Island” or “Alice in Wonderland” while we, faculty —of Humanities, Business, AND Sciences—congregate and proceed to flagellate ourselves in public, in front of each other. Shirts and blouses off. The whips singing in the air, alive. Can’t you picture it? it already gives me shivers of delight. It is such an intelligent design, I envy it myself.

And: Why? Simple: for daring to ever, ever, ever, have considered not teaching intelligent design. Or to have dared teach the students to think, to question, to read, to not accept everything that is fashionable at this political moment.

Country bumpkins, unite! Once my idea cathes on, there is a really good business opportunity making those whips with metal nails at the tip (flagello, for those who know its real name). Every academic will need one.

I figure after two or three years of this regimen, the country will be ready. Our well prepared students will conquer the world. And/or flatten it.

Bumpkins, unite! Our hour is near!

Mary, at 9:15 pm EST on November 10, 2005

David Galef is a citizen as well as an English Professor, and hence can speak on whatsoever he wishes. Happily he is a witty citizen, from whose wit we can all learn something.

Oliver Conant, at 1:12 pm EST on November 11, 2005

designed to please

The author of the article says “Drop a candy bar on the sidewalk, and come back to find ants swarming all over it. Or put a piece of rotten meat in a cup and later find maggots in it, having come out of nowhere! This is called spontaneous generation. Biologists eventually decided that airborne spores, like little men from parachutes, wafted onto the food and set up shop there, but does that make any sense to you?”

It is curious to me, ironic even, that “spontaneous generation” as an explanatory device is subtly mocked as nonsensical; yet the macroevolutionary model explains, presumably intelligently and scientifically, that life itself began just so. No wonder many are saying “does that make any sense to you?”

orville, at 8:31 pm EST on November 12, 2005

Science as a ‘belief’ system

First, it is hilarious to see an IDer attack the author for not having a scientific degree. The bulk of IDers do not have much scientific credentials... Secondly, where in the world does this “science is a belief system” or “evolution is a belief system” just like religion? Does religion have rigourous methodology which subjects its assertions and assumptions to strenous doubt and skepticism? Science is a rigorous way of arriving at knowledge of phenomena. Evolution is both an empirical observation (yes, no one was there at the evolutions of life, but noone was there at the Big Band either but there is real, empirical evidence of both) and a theory which has been confirmed by a large body of evidence.The point of this article is that there are many, and were many, incorrect ‘competing’ theories on various phenomena. Many were wildly incorrect because instead of applying the scientific method to our world they were heavily influenced by religious or ideological assumptions. That is the situation we find ourselves in now...

Ken, Radford University, at 6:29 pm EST on November 13, 2005

Ken,

Are you saying that you believe that the Big Bang has been proven scientifically? I don’t think that you will find any scientist who would say this is the case (at least not an honest one). What is true is that people “believe” that the Big Bang fits the majority of the evidence. However, there is much bias on both sides against considering actual evidence.

Another major point, science can never “prove” something occurred. What can be done is the opposite (null hypothesis) can be disproven. From that standpoint, you would have to prove the evolution could not occur or, alternatively, that intelligent design could not occur to move toward a definitive answer. I agree that there is a large body of evidence out there. The problem is that the evidence can be interpreted both ways depending on your initial assumptions. Any one who says otherwise is putting far too much stock in their implicit assumptions. Ultimately, it comes down to an issue of faith. Do you believe that our existence was designed or do you believe that it just happened?

rak, at 7:51 am EST on November 19, 2005