Somedays I just simply can’t take it anymore and would like to see nothing more than the banning of all my anti-science bretheren from using all of the benefits which science has brought to the world. Don’t believe in science, FINE, don’t use anything science helps discover. I’ll be happy to take the other side of the coin and agree to not benefit from any drug invented by some evolution doubting creationist or other such creature.
In the local UW rag: “The Daily”
Is intelligent design that scary?
As Jared Silvia states in “So what if we are monkeys?” (May 5) we indeed are “truly special.”
We are special enough to understand, as legislators in Kansas have grasped, that evolution is not the end-all it proposes to be. These legislators have realized since science will never be able to prove or disprove the evolutionary process, there must be another pertinent argument out there.
Contrary to what Silvia says, the theory of evolution is easy to wrap one’s mind around. It’s easy to look at dinosaurs, fossils and apes and draw conclusions that we are the apex of a long chain of evolution. What is hard is proving this fact. Where are the laws of science (the second law of thermodynamics), the DNA sequences, or the evidence of transitionary species (like the humans with no eyes) that prove evolution is the truth?
The Kansas legislators must have come to the same conclusions a lot of astronomers have come to recently when looking at the galaxies of the universe. These things may have been created by intelligent design.
Science can neither prove nor disprove evolution, so let’s stop the scientific and educational community from favoring only the theory of evolution. Is it such a bad thing to juxtapose one “theory” with another to facilitate a balanced discussion, as we will hopefully see during the future in Kansas?
John Messner, senior, history
When I see dribble like this I always think of my favorite theory which explain the universe. It involves lots of pink elephants, psycho grandmothers, gay sex, and arguments that Jesus was an athiest. And of course, it’s a possible explanation for all the experimental data (you really don’t want me to give the full theory do you? I’ll bet anyone I can turn any set of four items into an alternative explanation of the theory of evolution.) So please, Mr. Messner, let me teach my theory to all those young little minds and I’ll be glad to teach your intelligent design theory.
And then, to make my day even brighter, I find in Nature:
Academics stress licence threat to US science
Geoff Brumfiel, Washington
Alarms ring over rules for foreign nationals and ‘sensitive’ equipment.
Proposed changes to an obscure set of export rules could derail US research, say academic and industrial groups, who are now frantically trying to raise the alarm among scientists.
The modified rules would require academic researchers from countries including China and India to obtain a government licence before operating a wide range of lab equipment in the United States. In a 22 April letter to university department chairs, Judy Franz, executive officer of the American Physical Society, warned that the changes constitute a “potential threat to research”. And this week, the National Academies are convening a special workshop to inform scientists of the proposed changes.
At issue is a set of rules governing the export of sensitive technologies. Known as the Export Administration Regulations, the rules are meant to limit the transfer of equipment that could advance the military might of ‘countries of concern’ — a list that includes China, India, Pakistan and Russia. The regulations also require researchers from these countries working with some items of equipment to obtain a licence from the US Department of Commerce.
Traditionally, universities have thought themselves exempt from the regulations. But a March 2004 report from the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General, an independent watchdog, argued that the regulations do apply to academic labs. The report also proposed expanding the criteria under which a licence would be required for using controlled equipment, and applying the rules by country of birth rather than country of citizenship (see Nature 431, 615; 2004).
The 45-page equipment list includes common lab apparatus such as lasers and sealed glove boxes for handling hazardous material. Getting a licence for each potential user would overwhelm lab supervisors, warns Dan Mote, president of the University of Maryland, who is scheduled to talk at a National Academies workshop. “This really is potentially devastating,” he says. “It’s quite conceivable that this would just bring work to a halt.”
Industry is also concerned, according to Cynthia Johnson, director of government relations for Texas Instruments, a major US semiconductor manufacturer. Although industrial labs already have to comply with the rules, the proposal to base the regulations on a researcher’s country of birth rather than citizenship could alienate fresh talent, she says.
Department of Commerce officials stress that they are still far from making a final decision about how to modify the rules. “What we are doing is seeking input,” says Peter Lichtenbaum, assistant secretary for export administration.
That is why it is important for researchers to weigh in with their objections, says Arthur Bienenstock, a physicist and dean of research and graduate policy at Stanford University in California. “What the Department of Commerce needs is an honest assessment of what it would mean if the inspector-general’s rules were implemented,” he says. The comment period closes on 27 May
Nature 435, 4 (5 May 2005).
Yeah! Let’s demolish the research universities! Yeah!
And of course, today, in Kansas, even Todo is spinning in his grave as the Kansas State Board of Education seems to be unaware that there are vast legions of scientists out there who are extending their lives by developing drugs whose validity across species is explicitly searched for using the theory of evolution. Instead they choose to call hearings which are boycotted by scientists and say such amazing things as
“It’s intellectually stimulating,” said board Chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, one of the three presiding members. “It’s good information.”
Oh, and one more thing. If I see the theory of evolution called the theory of the origin of life one more time, I’m simply, well, I’m simply going to explode.
