College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

The Daily Texan

The Firing Line: 03/23/09

By The Daily Texan

Print this article

Published: Monday, March 23, 2009

Updated: Monday, March 23, 2009

Moving on with SG


I am taking very seriously the charge that Student Government has lost legitimacy in light of recent revelations regarding the impartiality of former Election Supervisory Board Co-chairman Cesar Martinez Espinosa and President Keshav Rajagopalan (“Election board co-chairman campaigned for candidates,” March 10, “Rajagopalan used official title while campaigning for O’Rourke,” March 12).

The fact that this debate is occurring belies the vague and cloudy wording of the election code itself. We must clarify it. Last year the election code underwent a drastic overhaul, and this election cycle has revealed several kinks that need to be addressed.

I particularly support proposals to take control of the board out of the hands of SG and to include faculty and staff on the board. Another suggestion involves the College Councils and the Senate of Councils taking a role in the SG’s board member selection. Clearly, members of SG cannot have the power to appoint the board, retain their rights to make personal endorsements and expect total confidence in the impartiality of the elections process.

Being new to the process, I feel betrayed by the revelation that forces were working to prevent the election of “outsiders” despite lofty rhetoric urging more students to run. But we as a campus must look forward. I am confident that the legitimacy of the incoming administration will be upheld by the Election Review Task Force. And we will work diligently and quickly to reform the SG election system so that we can shift our focus to improving our campus and addressing student concerns as soon as possible.

I encourage anyone interested to come to our working session this Tuesday at 7 p.m. in the Glenn Maloney Room of the Student Services Building.

Matt Daley
Biology and history junior
College of Natural Sciences representative-elect


Moving on with SG II

In light of the recent events surrounding the student government elections, a large percentage of the student body is calling for President Keshav Rajagopalan’s dismissal, a re-election and drastic changes to UT elections. While I agree that the UT system of elections is broken, I don’t believe the president should be dismissed or the election redone — the results will not amend any of the wrongs the student body feels have been committed and will not fix any damage to the integrity of the election.

A gracious opponent would recognize that no “secret” organization could have gathered the 2,000-vote majority carried by the Liam O’Rourke and Shara Ma Kim campaign the weekend prior to the election. Phillip Tau seems unwilling to acknowledge the obvious — he was out-campaigned, outshone and simply outdone in an election which was not as close as he would have you believe. Furthermore, a new election would simply have people voting the same exact way they did three weeks ago, accomplishing nothing.

The students calling for our president’s dismissal also forget that Cesar Martinez Espinosa was found to have done nothing illegal (ditto with Rajagopalan). Espinosa resigned of his own volition, and the elections monitors were quoted in The Daily Texan saying he did nothing illegal. If so, how can our president be dismissed for doing absolutely nothing wrong?

The issue of election transparency is one for campaign platforms — not informing the student body of a potential illegality is within Rajagopalan’s rights as president of the student body; he did acknowledge it to the proper authorities, but he should not be forced out of office for not being as transparent as he claimed he would be when he campaigned — U.S. Presidents have remained in office after worse offenses.
 
Zachary Garber
Government and physics freshman

Creationism does not belong in Texas schools

Creationism, intelligent design — it has gone by a number of names, but its central agenda is the same: to water down the teaching of evolution in schools. The never-ending permutations about “weaknesses” in evolutionary theory have now led to a dangerous attack regarding “sufficiency and insufficiency” of evolutionary theory in the Texas school science curriculum.

On March 27, under questionable motives, the Texas State Board of Education will vote to revise the state’s science standards. According to the Austin American-Statesman, Don McLeroy, head of the state board, has incorrectly claimed that he is “the defender of science.” McLeroy, an avowed Young Earth Creationist (those who believe that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old), wants to add provisions that question the “sufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of cells.” McLeroy has been on a long crusade to undermine the teaching of evolution in schools. In fact, he relishes “debate” with his opponents, without acknowledging that science is not the art of persuasion but a systematic evaluation of observed data. Intelligent design, by default, cannot be tested.

The consensus among Texas professors about scientific education standards is clear. A survey by the Texas Freedom Fund showed that of 464 Texas science professors, 98 percent did not consider intelligent design a valid science. Moreover, 92 percent of respondents agreed that intelligent design should not be taught in Texas public schools.

The final strike against the board’s “scientific” plans includes 94 percent of scientists who feel the wording about “weaknesses” should not exist regarding evolution in science education, and another 80 percent felt this wording would undermine student readiness for college. In January, UT biology professor David Hillis told The New York Times that “it’s a clear indication that the chairman of the state school board doesn’t understand the science.” The record of federal legal rulings is quite clear: Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), Edward v. Aguillard (1987) and Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) and more have all ruled that teaching creationism in school is unconstitutional.

If you’re like me, you’ve probably paid good money for an education, and part of that education is the teaching of evolution as science. So you too should be outraged. There is little room for doubt that the education board is trying to sneak creationism into science education standards.

As a member of the Texas student chapter of Scientists and Engineers for America, I urge you to write to your board member and demand they uphold the rigorous scientific standards that have made our nation the leader in scientific innovation and discovery.

Information on how to identify your board representative, how to contact them and a full background of the proposed changes can be found on the Scientists and Engineers for America — Austin Chapter’s Facebook group.

Please take the time to ensure that Texas students receive the education they deserve.

David Truong
Cell and molecular biology graduate student
Scientists and Engineers for America, Austin Chapter

Comments

17 comments
Steven
Wed Mar 25 2009 07:43
Sorry, that last post was me.

Steven

Your name
Wed Mar 25 2009 07:42
K Wills,

1. An explanation for how life began is absolutely relevant. The proponents of the theory of evolution hold it to be an all encompassing explanation for how things came to be the way they are. For that to be the case, there has to be an explanation for going from inanimate to animate. The shrugging of shoulders and saying "we just don't know" leaves a major hole. It is like saying, we know steps 3, 4, and 5 for getting here but steps 1 and 2 don't really matter. If you are going to hold that evolution is the only possible explanation, it must be a complete explanation.

2. To simply say the Cambrian explosion has no legs would be like me simply saying that the theory of evolution has no legs without offering any explanation. This is an honest debate so please present some honest facts that explain how the Cambrian explosion is explained by the theory of evolution.

3. A conscience, or moral obligation, is the pull that humans feel to do what they know is the right thing, regardless of what is beneficial or desirable. Humans certainly do not always follow their conscience or moral obligation, but its pull is there. The cruelty of nature is evidence enough. However, the claim that humans are the only ones that feel moral obligation is irrelevant. Even if animals felt it as well, evolution cannot explain the development of the moral obligation. Because it leads to a desire for fair play and not advancing oneself at the expense of others, it is not a trait that improves chances of survival and therefore cannot be accounted for by the theory of evolution.

Lets make your last statements point #4.

4. These are very strong arguments that the theory of evolution cannot account for. I never claimed that I had a complete theory that should be taught instead of evolution. My point is that since theory of evolution is not 100% airtight, as many seem to think, the weaknesses of it should be taught along with the strengths. This enables students to have a desire to find the full truth, which is the pursuit of science.

5. The claim that God created the earth is certainly a valid theory that explains much of what we see around us. It is not a scientific theory in the way that the theory of evolution is but it can be backed by scientific evidence. However, the scientific method is not the only method of finding truth, which is what many seem to think. You cannot use the scientific method to prove that you have free will. You cannot use the scientific method to prove that I love my wife. The scientific method is very good for finding many kinds of truth but truth can also be learned from history and introspection. Just because the scientific method may be the easiest way to find such truth doesn't mean it is the only or even the correct way.

Please keep in mind that neither am I advocating taking the theory of evolution out of school nor advocating the teaching of Intelligent Design. I am simply advocating that the weaknesses of the theory of evolution be taught along with the strengths and mentioning that an explanation many believe in is Intelligent Design.

Please continue to respond.

K Wills
Tue Mar 24 2009 18:56
For Steven, that's all nice, but it's wrong.

1) How life began. It's true we do not yet know how life began. It's also unnecessary. Evolution does not need to supply all the answers and doesn't pretend to do so. One can make the inference that you suggest--that life began from inanimate to animate--based on the theory. And, you would have a leg to stand on because it has a lot of evidenciary support. On the other hand, you can't go around telling children that an invisible superhero created the entire universe based on an ancient compilation of writings from highly superstitious people. That is irresponsible.

2) The Cambrian explosion. This argument is an attempt to discredit evolutionary theory but it has no legs.

3) How can evolution account for humans being the only species with a conscience? How do you know humans are the only ones with a conscience? And, you'll have to define what a "conscience" actually is before you proceed.

Thus far, as with most religious objections to evolution, you have no argument and you present no counter-theory of any consequence. Godidit is not a theory nor should it be considered valid in any sense of the word.

K Wills
Tue Mar 24 2009 18:35
Oh, I understand, Caleb. We cannot know absolute truth. I get it. But here's is what you said : "There are certain questions that science can never answer, and religion, philosophy, and spirituality fill in the gaps." That is the definition of a "God of the Gaps" argument. I don't understand it therefore "godidit". Even, as De Grasse Tyson suggests, Newton did the same thing.

My argument is that science and religion are indeed incompatible. They are differing philosophical approaches to discovering truth. One uses observation and testing and adjusts their position while the other uses an ancient book or folklore and claims absolute truth. That's precisely why the more fundamentalist religious community is so hell-bent on changing the standards for science because their "absolute truth" is questioned by the discoveries made by science and simple observation. I.E., its difficult to get your parishioners to follow if your authority is undermined.

Steven
Tue Mar 24 2009 17:59
The primary problem with teaching only the theory of evolution as an explanation of how we got here is the fact that there are glaring holes in it:

1. How did life begin? For everything to have evolved from single-cell organisms, something had to go from inanimate to animate. Can anyone explain how that happened using the scientific method? No, because the scientific method requires repetition and you cannot repeat a one-time event.

2. The Cambrian explosion. The sudden appearance of most phyla of animals in the fossil record does not fit the bill of "slowly, by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations; it can produce no great or sudden modification." In his time, Darwin knew that this was a hole in his argument but he figured that the fossil record was incomplete and as it filled out, his theory would be upheld. However, the opposite has happened, the filling out of the fossil record has shown the Cambrian explosion to be more drastic than it was believed to be in Darwin's day.

3. How can evolution account for humans being the only species with a conscience? When you look at the brutality of nature, the strong always preying upon the weak, it emphasizes that other animals do not share the moral obligation that humans have.

As you may have guessed, I do not believe in the theory of evolution as a world view. I do know that micro-evolution occurs but that does not necessarily translate to macro-evolution; just as newtonian mechanics do not translate into the world of quantum mechanics. I do not believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in classrooms. However, I do believe that the weaknesses of the theory of evolution should be presented in addition to its strengths and Intelligent Design mentioned as an alternate idea that provides a possible explanation where evolution cannot. Spending more than 2 minutes on ID would not be right but to leave it and the weaknesses of evolution out is simply dishonest to our children. They deserve a proper education which means giving them both sides of the story.

God Bless

Jeff
Tue Mar 24 2009 14:14
Okay, so Caleb, making a very reasonable and useful contribution, uses the word "gaps" and immediately an arch debunker seizes on the term as though programmed to do so and spits out "god of the gaps." That wasn't where Caleb was going, at all. Understand that I have no patience whatsoever for this young earth creationism nonsense. Neither am I an atheist. I haven't dumbed down the concept of God the way it is taught to 6 year olds in Sunday school. God is not Mickey Mouse, you got that? Life is not paint by numbers. You have to come into this stuff on your own, no one else can do it for you, or it will not serve its intended purpose. Metaphor, people. Don't just look it up, try to understand what it is and what purpose it serves.
Caleb Dzul
Tue Mar 24 2009 13:50
K Wills, I don't think you read what I said very well.

The whole philosophy behind science is that it cannot be proven, but disproven. The "truths" you speak of are temporary placeholders to explain observable phenomena, but they are always subject to change. Every scientist should have been taught this. Meanwhile, even though scientific phenomena aren't known completely in their essence, mankind can manipulate science to accomplish incredible feats.

My arguement was that science and religion are not incompatible, as Evangelicals tend to profess with cognitive dissonance and absolutist blind faith. I'm not speaking for myself, but I'm saying that, for those who believe in an oniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God, the history of science and christianity is one of compatibility because those christian thinkers thought that the discoveries of man through science unraveled of the mysteries of God, rather than contradicting the bible.

Perhaps one day you could extract an algorithm or a developmental psychology theory of credence to make people believe that the purpose of life is "x", but until then, it's all conjecture and people bring in religion to substitute for the unknown. I guess that's what you call the "god of the gaps," but that's not was I meant to insinuate. Science, logic, and reason cannot answer everything in our world, at least not yet. Call it superstious or stories, but religion has observably positive effects on people's health and well-being...at least when they aren't killing over it. Much like scientific theories, even though they cannot be proven in their essence, they have real-world effects.

K Wills
Tue Mar 24 2009 12:38
Caleb expresses what is referred to as "the God of the Gaps." That is to say, if you don't understand it "goddidit". That is not a position that lends itself to discovery nor truth. Instead, what should be readily clear is that stories written thousands of years ago by highly superstitious people are just that: stories. The Pope said something the other day to the effect that people should not give credence to "superstitious" religions. Seriously, that could not have been more ironic.

For tm61: 1) If Christians have difficulty accepting scientific truths it isn't because of atheists. It's because they don't want to know the truth. They would rather live a life of fantasy. Scientific truths (and truths in general) are readily apparent through observations with or without the aid of atheists.

2) Christians are fond of applying "rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests" while not using the same standard of proof for their own beliefs. That's a double standard.

You better not mess with Major Tom
Tue Mar 24 2009 09:06
Major Ray, if feeling oppressed works for you, then go ahead and run with it. But just so you know, you are never the victim, you just need to learn to forgive yourself. God doesn't sweat the small stuff and it's ALL small stuff.

Which do you prefer: red ants or black ants? It's kind of like that.

I wear a 7 5/8 hat.

Major Ray
Mon Mar 23 2009 21:00
I am a Christian idiot who loves your criticism of me. When educated fools call me stupid I feel closer to Jesus! His peer review board crucified him. Perhaps you are smarter than Jesus! Compared to the "Son of God", low forehead biologists do not intimidate me. I will still pray for you, however.
bobxxxx
Mon Mar 23 2009 16:43
"They think that if they don't believe in EVERYTHING that it says in the Bible, they're going to Hell."

That makes sense. This could be why Christian cowards are terrified of modern science.

Why do you Texans tolerate an imbecile like Don McLeroy? Why aren't more people demanding his removal from the Texas State Board of Education? How can Texans allow a god-soaked idiot make decisions about science curriculums?

JLVernon
Mon Mar 23 2009 15:15
If you would like to get involved in this issue, join the Austin Chapter of Scientists and Engineers for America in a March to the Texas Board of Education meeting on Wednesday at 11am in the courtyard of the Anna Hiss Gymnasium and the Molecular Biology Building. We will be walking with individuals who have registered to testify at the hearings and we encourage you to join us.
You too can register to testify by following the instructions on the Austin Chapter of SEA Facebook page.
The deadline to register is today (Monday, March 23, 2009) at 5pm.
tm61
Mon Mar 23 2009 14:48
Good point Caleb..."obvious scientific truth" was a poor choice of words. The Clergy letter project says it better:"...a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests".
No use for Fundies
Mon Mar 23 2009 12:39
Here's what the drooling Christian idiots are afraid of: Going to Hell. They think that if they don't believe in EVERYTHING that it says in the Bible, they're going to Hell. Newsflash: God doesn't believe in red tape and none of that stuff matters. That stuff is MAN MADE. Get over your fear and realize God doesn't sweat the small stuff. Stop living in fear and start learning to love.
Caleb Dzul
Mon Mar 23 2009 11:54
There's no such thing as an obvious scientific truth or fact. Science is a method of trying to explain how the world works through empirical data for practical purposes, it's nothing more than a method of observation and forming hypotheses and theories. A theory can never be proven to be true, but it can be proven wrong.

Science is not a religion, and it does not supplant or disprove religion. There are certain questions that science can never answer, and religion, philosophy, and spirituality fill in the gaps. Why am I here, what is my purpose? Why is this painting beautiful? What career should I choose?

Today's Evangelical Christians do not take account of the history of science and Christianity, which is a history of compatability. During the Enlightenment, Francis Bacon, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and other high profile Rennaissance figures came to understand the newfound observations of science not as contradictory to the Bible, but as a way of revealing the greater mystery of God's plan. Many believed that science was a crucial tool for a more correct understanding of the Bible. Back then, thinkers recognized that God bestowed man with free will and reason, and science is the tool of reason. Only the Divine Law, such as the ten commandments and other biblical sayings, were not obvious by reason alone.

Creationism is taught in church, there is no need to supplant it with science courses in school. Remember, even if you believe that the Bible is literally God's word, recognize that the world has changed, and a text that is 2,000 years old has been mettled with by humans, even if you believe God allowed it to be so. If you believe that God has allowed the world we live in to exist, then recognize that science is also part of God's plan and not a contradiction.

tm61
Mon Mar 23 2009 11:15
Does anyone know why rabid fundamentalist atheists post inflammatory insults that drive moderate Christians away from accepting obvious scientific truths?
bobxxxx
Mon Mar 23 2009 10:20
"Creationism, intelligent design — it has gone by a number of names, but its central agenda is the same: to water down the teaching of evolution in schools."

Does anyone know why Christian retards are constantly trying to dumb down the teaching of modern biology? I noticed biology teachers don't tell Sunday school teachers how to do their jobs. What are the drooling Christian idiots so afraid of?







log out