Glorious technology
Technology is exciting, Ken Tran. There's this new invention called the Internet, which can be used for gathering information crucial for the composition of an informed opinion. Try NASA's Web site. You could learn something about the new moon mission.
Let's talk technology. The new moon mission is based on the Apollo mission, meaning it has a rocket and a lunar lander. Updates: The new system will use liquid methane fuel and the lander will be bigger and reusable. More astronauts can stay longer and can land anywhere they'd like, rather than being restricted to the moon's equator.
Best of all, the new system will be used not to collect more moon rocks but to establish a permanent lunar base, which will be a crucial launching point for an eventual manned Mars mission. Exploring other planets means more scientific opportunities, maybe a cure for cancer or a new energy source.
We share a common dream, right? A world without pollution, without the consequences of our ancestors' ignorance, perhaps without political boundaries or war? We could start over for the better.
So do your readers a favor, Ken Tran. Before you toss out the moon mission and NASA, do your research. The last thing we need is more trash in our newspapers.
Amanda Koss Journalism junior
Science will support ID
The authors of the article "Evolution debate hurting science" (Sept. 23) have confused the concept of evolution as a process with the concept of evolution as an origin. The Darwinian model the writers discuss in the first several paragraphs addresses the former and does not speak to the latter. In fact, you will find exceedingly few thinking intelligent design proponents that would disagree with the assertions made in the first seven paragraphs of the column.
The leaps of logic begin in the next paragraph, where the focus shifts to evolution between species (as opposed to within species), and continue later on, where suddenly the implication is that evolution is a viable explanation for life's origin (not simply a process by which species adapt over time).
Similarly, the authors make a sizable leap of logic in stating that the fossil record confirms the theory of evolution simply because it "agrees" with it.
I am unaware of any instance where the fossil record does not agree with the concept of intelligent design, but I am certainly not willing to claim that this confirms its validity. The fact is that the fossil record is the weakest leg the theory of evolution has to stand on (by Darwin's own admission, since which little has changed).
Those who believe intelligent design to be a viable mechanism by which life may have originated are by and large proponents of science, not ideologues attempting to stifle it. In fact, while recognizing (as the authors fail to do) that there is a nearly infinite amount of information mankind has yet to uncover about this vast universe, we believe science will ultimately support our conclusion.
Jason Obermeyer UT alumnus
WEB EXCLUSIVE FIRING LINES
Glorious technology, II
One can argue about the intelligence of having a big public relations announcement in the wake of Hurricane Katrina with Rita looming on the horizon, but hey, it's NASA. What do you expect from bunch of geeks?!
First, NASA has requested no additional funding for the moon program. At a cost of a little under $9 billion a year till 2018, it's a relatively cheap endeavor in light of the entire federal budget. Second, NASA provides a good many jobs in the Gulf Coast region. Building Habitat for Humanity homes for all of those people will do nothing if they have no employers to work for. Third, NASA has been and always will be pushing the envelope with no guarantee of future returns. With commercial space flight finally becoming a reality, it only makes sense for NASA to return to doing the risky R&D that our great-grandchildren will rely on.
Stephen Olander Waters UT alumnus
Minutemen rebuttal
Let us analyze Candice Lewis's attempt to correct the "facts" about the Minutemen.
She mentions that they "forcibly detain immigrants." This story is related to a rules infraction in which the government has not pressed charges and the Minuteman in question was expelled from the group.
Much like our Neighborhood Watch programs, the Minutemen do not carry "sawed-off shotguns," which are typically illegal. Rather they carry small side arms that they are not allowed to un-holster except under the most extreme of circumstances. There has been one recorded occasion when a man showed up at the minuteman project, brandishing an M-16 and wanting to join. The organizers refused his application.
They in no way make an attempt to impersonate federal officers, except for the fact that they are doing the job that federal officers should have handled long ago.
You can believe Lewis's random accusations of xenophobic speech, or you can check the oath that these leaders have set up for the members to take. The second point of the oath states that the United States is a nation of immigrants, and the third decries racism.
If the American Civil Liberties Union really cared about human rights abuses, rather than their warped political leanings, they would be on the border documenting the abuses of border gangs such as MS-13, or of the horrific disregard for human life that the "coyotes" have for their "patrons."
Furthermore, she goes on in a tirade against Chris Burns in which she admits that the ACLU has no real evidence against the Minutemen.
On Wednesday, Jordan Buckley proclaimed that the Young Conservatives of Texas thought it was "hip to recruit volunteers for a militia." No, we just have a problem with Students for the ACLU thinking that it is "hip" to lie about an organization they disagree with.
Tony McDonald Young Conservatives of Texas member Economics and Government freshman
Free the free market
Dear Attorney General Abbott,
Your "anti-gouging" campaign is completely misguided and is a gross disservice to the Texans you are supposed to protect - both producers and consumers.
First, merchants have the right to offer their merchandise at any price they want. If it's too high, the public will let them know by not buying it and they will lower the prices. Second, the free-market mechanism is the only way of determining which items are in shortest supply - they will be the ones offering the most profit to private entrepreneurs - and meeting the demand in the fastest time possible.
Your interfering with the free market is completely counterproductive. Forcing all products' prices to stay the same in an emergency simply causes supplies to run out, at which point no supplies are available at any price - which is exactly what we're seeing.
Prices are a reflection of demand for a product in a given set of circumstances. When those circumstances change, prices should change accordingly, and those changes will not only show where the need is greatest, but attract the most new supplies to meet the need.
I'm know you're getting plenty of gouging complaints to investigate from ignorant constituents who think they have a right to buy products at artificially low prices, but your anti-gouging campaign shows either your own lack of economic education or your interest in pandering to your uneducated constituents' ignorance, to their own detriment. Not in my name. Please stop.
Alan McKendree UT staff
Eye is unintelligent
If I may offer an additional observation to the fine column by Elliot and Ryan Ash "Evolution debate hurting science." In that article, Michael Behe, a leader of the intelligent design movement, cites the complexity of the human eye as presumptive evidence for an intelligent creator. I've heard this argument previously and am always confused by it because, despite the structures remarkable precision and utility, the eye is actually quite unintelligently designed.
Only a superficial examination of ocular anatomy reveals the basis for this statement. Light enters the eye through a hole in the front (the pupil) and is focused via the lens to the back of the eye, or retina. The retina contains specific light sensitive cells (photo receptors) that turn this image into nerve signals for interpretation by the brain.
However, positioned between the lens and photo receptors are the nerves and blood vessels that supply the retina. In other words, a light image must travel through an obscuring network of tissue to reach the light sensitive cells, an unfortunate ordering of structures resulting in a consequent decrease in visual acuity. Were this not the case, we would all have better vision. A particularly dense collection of these nerves and blood vessels is found in an area called the optic disk, which explains why every eye has a "blind spot". A more sensible arrangement, and one an intelligent designer might utilize, would be to place this tissue on the other side of the retina, leaving an unimpeded path from light source to photo receptor. The present architecture of the eye is analogous to manufacturing a high definition TV, and placing the power cord in the middle of the screen rather than behind the television where it belongs.
Such a set might be functional, it could even have a high quality picture, but if forced to watch it, one would have to admit, it's very poorly designed.
Countless incremental evolutionary improvements over millions of years have transformed a flawed blueprint into a masterpiece of precision and function, but it's not the logical way to build an eye. Evolutionary science not only explains such "design defects," it actually predicts them.
My advice to proponents of intelligent design: Find another example to demonstrate the intuitive validity of your position, the one you've chosen may reflect just the opposite.
David Watson Journalism freshman
Should have cancelled class
President Faulkner,
Class is cancelled on Saturday? No way. Thanks for announcing it to my fellow UT students and I, since we all have class on Saturday.
I would think we could learn, like every other institution of higher learning in Texas, from the Katrina disaster, and focus on the safety of our friends and family. Or we could go to class on Friday and be the one university that doesn't take the hurricane seriously. What a smart, thought-out decision. I mean, hurricanes really don't pose much of a threat. What evidence is there to the contrary?
I am not a lazy student who wants to skip class for a day. To me it seems that if anything positive could come out of Katrina, it would be a lesson in preparing for the worst and thus ensuring the safety of as many lives as possible.
Your decision not to cancel class on Friday, if it was indeed yours, is mind-bogglingly stupid.
Zach Cihal Plan II senior
To submit your own firing line, click here
Be the first to comment on this article!