Intelligent design is a scientific proposition, not a religious idea
Contrary to the completely erroneous article by Nick Jaynes [“Intelligent design isn’t so smart,” March 13], which is full of misinformation, intelligent design as an intellectual idea, and as a scientific theory, stretches back as far as the ancient Greeks. The idea of intelligent design reaches back to Socrates and Plato, and the term “intelligent design” as an alternative to blind evolution was used as early as 1897. Based on discoveries in the middle of the last century, the theory of intelligent design was being articulated by scientists as early as the late 1970s and 1980s.
Indeed in “By Design,” a history of the current intelligent design controversy, journalist Larry Withal traces the immediate roots of the intelligent design movement in biology to the 1950s and ’60s, and the movement itself to the 1970s.
As a precursor to the current idea of irreducible complexity, a mainstay of intelligent design theory, one of the first scientists to explain these discoveries was chemist and philosopher Michael Polaner, who in 1967 argued that “machines are irreducible to physics and chemistry” and that “mechanistic structures of living beings appear to be likewise irreducible.” This contributed largely to the work of design scientist Michael Behe who later outlined irreducible complexity in his best-selling book Darwin’s Black Box. Later, reviewing new scientific developments and discoveries in 1982, leading theoretical physicist Paul Davies described the fine-tuning of the universe as “the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.”
Before Behe, the seminal 1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton (Ph.D., physical chemistry, Iowa State University), Walter Bradley (Ph.D., materials science, University of Texas, Austin), and Roger Olsen (Ph.D., geochemistry, Colorado School of Mines) argued that matter and energy can accomplish only so much by themselves, but beyond that an intelligent cause is necessary to account for the complexity of life.
At about the same time The Mystery of Life’s Origin was published, biologist Michael Denton’s 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis made the argument that “The inference to design is purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.” Clearly the idea of intelligent design was based on scientific evidence and data, and did not originate with a religious pre-supposition.
Robert CrowtherDirector of communications, Discovery InstituteSeattle, WA
Jaynes isn’t so smart
Upon reading Mr. Jaynes’ article entitled “Intelligent design isn’t so smart,” I found myself quite amused. The headline led me to believe that a breakthrough in science had led to a confirmation of Darwin’s age old “theory.” Instead I was led on a rambling journey from the Bible to Republicans to The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the Raelians and back once again to “the crazy Christians.”
Contrary to Mr. Jaynes’ claim, it is highly unlikely that Raelianism is currently being taught in public schools and Christians generally do not run around with sandwich boards asking ignorant questions like
“Why don’t monkeys give birth to a human once in a while anymore?” Sadly, after all the gross misconceptions related to intelligent design and its advocates, the article was void of any points that either confirmed evolution or disproved intelligent design. In the name of journalistic professionalism, assertions that generalize should be solidified by actual fact. While this article is understandable in the context of the editorial and opinion section, it certainly would not hold up elsewhere.
T.L. NolandPortland
Response to “ASPS-Who?”
ASPSU will continue to hold our heads very high [“ASPS-Who?,” March 13]. At the end of the day, which is sometimes 10 to 12 hours, I know that I have given every ounce of my effort towards the school this year. Yes, a government should be able to communicate its abilities, and for that I will take criticism. What else is new from a few vocal students who innately have intelligent abilities, and not one has offered to assist. Instead we take this criticism and continue to do what we do. How can you at all claim this year to be a failure?
Come to the press conference this Friday with the governor’s office in Parkway North to talk about renewable energy. Maybe you could have attended “Breaking Down the Barriers” to connect with high school students from underrepresented communities this last Friday. The point is we do amazing things too, and we try to tell the students about it in the mean time.
The things we do are not some hidden agenda, we are working towards a better community and that deserves some respect in my opinion. As a political science major, I am finding more and more that negativity only hurts our community, and wastes time. Thank you to all the students, and I apologize to the students for the lack of communication.
Courtney MorsePresident, ASPSU
ASPSU is here
The Associated Students of Portland State University provide a lot of material for the Daily Vanguard jeer machine this year, and with just cause. The ASPSU is far from perfect. This was dutifully pointed out in the opinion article “ASPS-Who” published on Tuesday. It must be noted that in this article, despite its pro-student intentions, are many misleading ideas about the way that ASPSU operates and our accomplishments this year. Please allow me to address these issues.
Visibility has been not been as prevalent as we would have preferred this year, however, there are many ways in which we do connect with students. For the first few weeks of each term, the ASPSU canvasses the Park Blocks, flagging down any student who will listen and offering them the chance to be informed about our campaigns and get involved through internships, volunteering or seats within the different ASPSU bodies. Most students are not able to get involved; however, we do run very successful internship programs each term. Last fall alone we were fortunate enough to recruit 22 interns, many of whom stayed on this term. The ASPSU also phone banks countless hours each term for various events and campaigns.
The author of the previously mentioned article is correct, students should not have to dig for information about their student government. However, the Daily Vanguard, perhaps in an effort to increase readership, only seems concerned with the controversies that shine a negative light on our efforts and make little attempt to report on the ways in which we do succeed.
One more issue I would like to address is that of the senate stipend. The main discussion has not been whether or not senators deserve a monthly stipend for their work-of course they do. The problem has been that an arbitrarily set stipend cap is in effect for student government and despite repeated efforts to appeal this cap, the administrative powers that be are not as responsive as we would like. We are still proactively working on getting this resolved. We’re not, however, in favor of an inflated student fee, which would decrease access to higher education.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the ASPSU recognizes its weakness in visibility but does not concede to the notion that we lack successful operations. Nothing is further from the truth. Please look for our next newsletter, available this weekend on our website and around campus. It is our best tool to inform students on the work we do, and we will increase the frequency of this publication. And as I have said many times before, please come by the ASPSU office whenever you have some time (Smith, Room 117). Come and see for yourself how the ASPSU works for you, the PSU student, with passion and determination. Thanks for your time and we wish you the best during finals week.
Monique PetersenCommunications director, ASPSU