Textbook revisions and the new world order

[Doc]

Monday's newspaper had interesting editorials on changes Texas school boards want to make in public school health textbooks. Most notable is pressure to change wording from "in adolescence, you begin to feel sexual desires" to "in adolescece, you begin to feel sexual desires for members of the opposite sex", and changing "people can raise children in loving parterships" to "families are a married man and woman raising children" (or something very close to those ideas).

This seems really disheartening to me that people are wanting to teach children some idealized version of life that doesn't exist.

However, it got worse. Driving home that night, NPR ran a feature on Cobb county, Georgia, where school board officials are involved in a lawsuit to keep stickers on public school science textbooks that say something to the effect of "This textbook contains information about evolution. This is only a theory, and this information should be approached with an open mind."

The effort is part of a movement to teach creationism and similar ideas in public school science classes. Not surprisingly, science teachers are against it, because those ideas aren't science. One of NPR's commentators summarized my initial respons best when he said that evolution is only a theory, much like gravity is only a theory. To me, denying scientific convention and ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence runs counter to science, instead of being science.

This is only part of my concern. What also disturbs me about both of these isn't just the content they want to replace and alter, but the movement to teach something other than health in health class and science in science class. What could come next?

[DeeCrowSeer]

Re: Textbook revisions and the new world order

Monday's newspaper had interesting editorials on changes Texas school boards want to make in public school health textbooks. Most notable is pressure to change wording from "in adolescence, you begin to feel sexual desires" to "in adolescece, you begin to feel sexual desires for members of the opposite sex", and changing "people can raise children in loving parterships" to "families are a married man and woman raising children" (or something very close to those ideas). This seems really disheartening to me that people are wanting to teach children some idealized version of life that doesn't exist.

Well, I don't know enough about adolescent sexuality to comment on the first one, and I really don't want to get into another pointless discussion about that, but the second one about "families" just seems mean. I don't have the statistics to hand, but I would imagine that a sizeable portion of the children who would have to read that book would have a less than "complete" family. Even without divorce and planned single-parenthood or cohabitation, there are often deaths in a family unit. To tell a child who has just lost his Mum or Dad in... ooh, I don't know, say a war for example... that he doesn't have a "family", seems rather harsh and unnecessary.

[A_Non_Ymous]

Remember the furor in fundamentalist factions 24 years ago when Carl Sagan's
Cosmos was aired. "Evolution isn't a theory. It's a fact!" (Shows trilobyte fossil.)

People uninvolved in science don't understand what scientists mean when they use
the word "theory." It doesn't mean it's unproven, necessarily. It may mean that it's
thought to be incomplete, among other things. Newton's Theory of Gravitation isn't
wrong, it's just not complete. The General Theory of Relativity patched certain aspects
of Newton, but it didn't invalidate it -- it simply defined the limits under which Newton's
laws "worked." The General Theory of Relativity is considered in a similar light. Science,
when practiced the right way, doesn't hold our old discoveries up to veneration. They
aren't accepted on faith, and good scientists are willing to challenge the accepted theories,
but it's done within limits, and we examine places where "assumptions" may not necessarily
hold, and examine the consequences.

The Theory of Evolution has a similar status. It's incomplete, but we know pretty well
on the basis of hard physical evidence that certain things are true. No amount of
fundamentalist pettifogging can invalidate those aspects that are demonstrably
true.

Nevertheless, the "creation science" people (what an oxymoron) are fond of using
this semantic murkiness to confuse the general populace. It's been going on for years.
Of course, these neo-No Nothings now own the apparatus of American government
in a lot of states, as well as at the Federal level.

I strongly object to the notion of including so-called creationism in biology or science
textbooks. That's a subject for religion classes. It has no respectable intellectual
standing, and from a pure category standpoint, it has no place in a science class.

---

A brief comment on Adlerian's mini-essay: you need to be careful, my friend,
about the way you bandy about words like "liberal" and "ultra-liberal academia."
"Liberal" describes a philosophical viewpoint. By labeling people "ultra-liberal academia"
instead of simply attacking their position, you engender a certain amount of Either/Or
thinking, where you by inference divide people into Procrustean categories which don't
appear to me to describe the facts that well.

It seems to me that what you're objecting to is a group of people pursuing an agenda,
and reminiscent of Havelock Ellis's famous description of decadent art,
they are subordinating the whole to the parts -- the parts consisting of their private
agendas. There's a big difference between philosophical liberalism (however "ultra")
and the condition you allude to. By all means, pick a particular agenda and rip it to
shreds, but let's not construct a grand unified theory of "ultra-liberal academics."

As I (somewhat crudely) put it to a friend recently, "There is the liberal philosophical
position, and then, there are camp followers for people who claim to represent 'Liberalism.'"
They aren't necessarily the same thing.

I believe in using reason. I'm not a follower. I'd describe myself as "liberal." I take very
mild offense to your categorization.

LSN

[Doc]

A couple of thoughts.

LSN-
I agree with you so often. I strongly agree that science teachers should teach science, not alternatives to science. Perhaps the next step would be to question mathematics. After all, it seems impossible that Methusela (sp?) could live nearly a thousand years. But since the Bible says he did, maybe those evil mathemeticians are just teaching kids to add years incorrectly. :)

Seriously, though, creationists who embrace the idea of dismissing findings because they are "merely" theory demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance of the language of the discipline they are trying to shape. A theory isn't an open question. I learned that in 7th grade science class.

On being one of those ultra-liberal academics (which I am)...

My degree is in social science, but I approach it from a very humanistic standpoint. Consequently, much of my scholarship has much more in common with the humanities than the sciences. No academic in the humanities would ever claim to be scientific, because in many ways the humanities are antithetical to science. That doesn't mean, however, that the humanities dismiss reason, rationality, or systematic observation.

Surprisingly, the ivory tower isn't as ultra-liberal as you might think. Even in the (please note the irony) liberal arts, there is a great deal of conservatism, most notably in political science, economics, and psychology. While I'll agree that a majority of academics are liberal/ progressive, my experience at several colleges and universities suggests that the extremism is exaggerated grossly.

[Mikey_C]

This is all pretty disturbing. My gut reaction is that the French are right - Keep Religion Out Of Schools. However, the practical solution is for teachers to be very clear about scientific method and the precise meaning of the word "theory" for instance. It might be ultra-liberal of me (I don't know what that means!), but I think the main aim of education should be to teach people to think and make up their own minds, not pump them full of facts.

There are big problems, by the way, in the manner in which evolution is commonly presented in the media, for example, in natural history TV programmes - as some kind of "force" shaping living creatures, or even as an intentional act by the organism itself (eg. "the anteater has evolved a long snout so it can reach deep into anthills"), rather than as the outcome of a huge number of random events.

I also think that the "Social Darwinists" and nowadays "sociobiologists" have brought the subject into disrepute for putting across the type of ideas the Adlerian alludes to: that poor people (and losers [I mean that in the best way] in general) are in the situation that they are because they are not strong enough and the female is purposely stunted and childlike in appearance and voice because it triggers a protective feeling in the male. (I mean, come on now, how many guys do you know who go for "stunted and childlike" women?)

Above all, science should be demystified. Everyone from Creationist Christians to the purveyors of dodgy snake oil therapies are cashing in on ignorance of the scientific method. We also need to be clear about the distinction between the natural "hard" sciences and the social sciences - but that doesn't invalidate the latter.

Of course, theists will always have the option of claiming that since god is clearly in favor of order he has created ordered rules for the universe and this is what you call science, but to my mind I don't see there's too much of a problem if it makes them happy to think like that, as long as they accept advances in scientific knowledge. Actually, I think that Christianity is far more undermined (completely, that is!) by the study of religious history and close examination of Biblical texts than it ever will be by the physical sciences.

[A_Non_Ymous]

A brief comment, because I think Doc and Mikey_C have already said enough on this subject
for me, and I already had my soapbox rant that comes like a conditioned reflex when I see
people using labels instead of arguments to denigrate a position. The categories
"Liberal" and "Conservative" are just labels. There's a lot of disagreement within the
confines of those labels. If one uses a label to attack a position, one catches all those who
can also have the label applied in the crossfire, whether they deserve it or not. If you've
got to use labels as a shorthand, define your terms to reduce the # of non-combatant
casualties. To smear people with a label isn't reasoned debate. It's argumentum ad
hominem.

The word "liberal" has become a term of opprobrium, and it picks up a lot of disinformation
along the way. Even in this forum (PP on MWM) a few months ago, one poster went so
far as to assert that liberals were known for being (in his words) "intolerant." That's a
wonderful categorical assertion, and equally unfair, unsupportable retorts representing
the opposite side jumped into my mind, but I just let it pass. No point in arguing at such
a level, and it'll just annoy the horse.

Give me a break. :roll:

To Doc: I don't think academia is in the least ivory tower liberal in nature. Your mileage
(or kilometrage) will vary depending on the department and the school, but I've found
a range of opinion in these areas when it comes to academia. One of my best friends
is an astronomer, and he's got a lot in common with Bill when it comes to how he
sees social and political issues. Perhaps my friend is a bit more of a Libertarian than
Bill. This makes for some wonderful arguments between us, but there's a certain
amount of mutual respect, so it always stays on the intellectual plane.

This is not uncommon in the physical sciences and especially in engineering,
where people like to break things down into "true" and "false" categories. For
every Oppenheimer, there's a Teller and a John Wheeler and a John von Neumann.
The Hoover Institute at Stanford has a certain # of liberal academic types, but it
has a definite "push" in the other direction, and they have members that respresent
both sides.

Disinformation from certain agenda-driven people to the contrary, there are forces other
than one's political philosophy at work on the agendas in academia. It's only part of the
story.

LSN

[A_Non_Ymous]

Postscript: Doc, we've got to stop this agreement stuff. Jerico will be along any minute
exhorting us to sing "kumbaya."

:lol:

LSN

[Jerico]

Adlerian,

It seems that your argument is: because homosexuality is the minority sexual orientation, it is therefore wrong. Either that or Christians are justified in their viewpoints because of that statistic.

First of all, where does that statistic come from? How was the data taken? Does the stat really reflect true numbers? Was the entire human population surveyed? I've never been asked my sexual orientation in a poll before. What was the sample size of those surveyed? Who conducted it?

If homosexuality is an aberration among humans, examining the beliefs of Christians is even more baffling. Why not put out a survey asking questions like "How do you know god exists?" "Have you ever seen God?" "Why do you believe in God?"
Based on the answers, I'm sure we can find plenty of people who could use some psychotherapy. Either that or it can give me a good idea of what kind of people I don't want to fuck-- people I think shouldn't fuck and reproduce. :D

___________________
My mom is catholic, but never "pushed" her beliefs onto me, and isn't zealouss enough to demend creationism be taught in schools.

To all the fundamentalists:
It's a stupid idea. Wanna teach creationism? Teach it to your own damn kids! It doesn't take a paid teacher to do it. Pull them away from the tv and the xbox and tell about the facts of life, even though your view may be a bit screwy. Offended? GOOD!

[Jerico]

About evolution: the reason that it is a theory is because we will never be able to observe it taking place, so it will always be a post hoc analysis..

Dave, that is not entirely correct.
True that you can't observe evolution real time, but that is not exactly why it is a theory.
The evidence supporting evolution is quite fascinating. You don't really need to read "long and boring" research literature to be convinced. Just looking at vestigial structures is good enough. consider how we all have tail bones or considering the skeletons of whales-- the skeletal structure under the big flipper curiously looks like a hand or paw, having phelanges-- evidence that they are creatures who moved from a terrestrial life to an aquatic life.
If that isn't convincing, the evidence found in geological research is compelling.

Winkipedia is great for studying science...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"Often the statement "Well, it's just a theory," is used to dismiss controversial theories such as evolution, but this is largely due to confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e. it

is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.
This is true of such established theories as evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, etc."
--------------------------------

On the other hand the scientific literature to support creationism... er... wait... there really isn't any. But then again, Christianity doesn't seem to need to hold the burden of proof. "I have faith" they can always fall back on.

The shittiest dentist I ever had saw that I had a genetics book with me and he made the comment on how absurd it is to think that "we came from monkeys." That confirmed to me that some dentists aren't the brightest flowers in the garden! That's not what evolution says, but if one's mind is so inflexible to not try to understand what it really says, that would say a lot more about oneself (the misinformed critic) than the theory itself. It made me think that the dentist must have gotten bad grades in biology, or didn't remember much when he had it back in 1954 or whenever.

The idea of teaching creationism in a biology class is both stupid and absurd simply because it doesn't belong there. I don't care how many momimies and daddies want it. Teach it to your own damn kids.
I think it good enough to say that Darwin was a religious man and Gregor Mendel was a monk, and leave it at that.

[A_Non_Ymous]

I think Adlerian is a good guy, but I want to suggest we put a stop to discussion about
whether evolution has actually been observed and documented until people have done a
literature search on this subject.

My own area of specialization is mathematics, but I'm sort of interested in this subject,
so I follow it. It seems to me that a lot of material has been published in the last 10 years
on documenting and explaining evolutionary processes at the DNA level. The modern
tools we now possess give us verification far beyond what Darwin and others knew.

Here's a summary of a paper I read in Nature a few years ago as a sample. There's
other stuff, too. I gather that Jerico is closer academically to this subject than me, so
I'll defer to his competence on this. I could always ask my brother-in-law for more
literature pointers -- he's a biochemist.

"What we cannot speak about we pass over in silence."

LSN

-----
Men regain evolutionary driver’s seat

Mutation study confirms strong male-driven evolution among humans and apes
Researchers from the University of Chicago have estimated that genetic mutations – the raw material for evolution – occur 5.25 times more often in males than in females. This discovery should lay to rest any doubts raised by recent studies questioning the dominant role males play in producing mutations for molecular evolution.

Their study, published in the April 11 issue of Nature, also shows that these mutations are caused mainly by random errors that occur during cell divisions rather than by environmental factors.

"Mutation is the ultimate source of variation," says Wen-Hsiung Li, Ph.D., the George Wells Beadle Distinguished Service Professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago. "Your ancestors and my ancestors accumulated different mutations, which is part of the reason why you and I look different."

For more than half a century, scientists have believed the main source of new mutations is in the male germ line. But two recent studies – one from the Whitehead Institute (2000) and the other from the International Human Genome Sequence Consortium (2001) – suggest the male-female ratio of mutation rate – or alpha – is only about 2-to-1, a drastic decrease from earlier estimates. Li and co-investigator Kateryna Makova, Ph.D., research associate in the department of ecology and evolution, have restored the validity of a high alpha among humans and apes.

Li and Makova studied part of the DAZ locus, a non-coding genetic sequence present on chromosome 3 and the Y chromosome. The researchers found a low male-female mutation rate when they compared closely related species, which involved a shorter evolutionary time span. For example, when they looked at humans, pygmy chimpanzees and gorillas, they found that alpha is only 1.4, which suggests there is only a slightly higher mutation rate in males than in females.

But for distantly related species, which, according to Li, better represent the general trend over evolutionary time, alpha is always high. This is consistent with earlier studies that also looked at distant species.

The study from the Whitehead Institute only compared closely related sequences from species that diverged after the point when human and chimpanzee split about 5 million years ago.

"One problem with this study is that they used a wrong gene genealogy," Makova says. "Also, it’s inappropriate to use closely related species because of ancient-nucleotide polymorphism." This means at the time of speciation, there already were mutations accumulating on chromosome 3. But the Y chromosome, which had virtually no polymorphism, did not start accumulating errors until the point of speciation. "When you account for ancient-nucleotide polymorphism, alpha increases drastically."

The Consortium study did not correct for multiple mutations that accumulated at the same site. Li and Makova corrected for this statistical error.

Not only are the two recent estimates significantly smaller than the earlier estimates, but they are also smaller than the estimate of alpha in carnivores, like dogs and cats (4) and birds (5). This conflicts with the generation-time effect hypothesis, which suggests that the molecular clock runs faster in organisms with a shorter generation time because they undergo a larger number of cell divisions per unit of time. So, for example, rodents have a faster molecular clock than humans.

"We would expect alpha to be higher in primates than in carnivores and birds because in primates there is a larger difference in the number of cell divisions between egg cells and sperm cells than in carnivores and birds," Makova said. "So these two new estimates didn’t make sense."

Li and Makova’s study is the first to calculate the male-female mutation rate without using the X chromosome. "Some have argued that the high alpha could be due to a reduction in mutation rate in X rather than an elevated rate in Y," they note in their paper. So in this study the researchers compared the Y chromosome with an autosome – an asexual chromosome – eliminating the X factor altogether.

"This is independent proof of the dominant male in producing mutations for molecular evolution," Makova says.

The study also suggests mutations are "replication-driven" – caused mainly by cell divisions and not environmental factors. Since cell divisions are continuous during a man’s life, his sperm stem cells constantly accumulate errors – or mutations. In contrast, there are only 24 cell divisions that occur in the egg cells of a woman, most of which take place before she is born.

"Since mutations seem to occur in the male germ line," Li says, "then replication errors are important and environmental factors are less important."

Since mutations in sperm cells accumulate as a man ages, does the biological clock tick faster for men as it does for women? Yes, but it’s not something worth worrying about, according to Li.

"The mutation rate is very low, so the increase in mutations in an individual male is not appreciable," he says, "even if you were to double or triple the rate."

Most mutations have no effect on a person’s health or survival, but merely accumulate within your DNA, according to Li. "This is because more than 90 percent of the human genome is non-coding. But mutations – bad, good or neutral – accumulate in the genome of a species – whether it’s bird, chimp or human."

[Jerico]

That article is much less complex a read than what is found in actual scientific journals like JAMA or PNAS. It is written for "the layman," but I'm willing to bet that 4 or more of any 10 random people you pull off the street will have difficulty reading it and understanding it.

It is no wonder to me that it's much more likely for people to say "God created the earth and all it's beauty," rather than "It's interesting how all the volcanic activity in the Ring of Fire is created by subduction zones."

I like to think that it's because we are a young country and our k-12 schooling is sub par and has much room for improvement rather than thinking people are resistant to learning about science.

My thinking is not that of an intellectual elitist. At least I don't think so. I plan on becoming a highschool science teacher someday in the near future.
If I could teach science in a way that every student will get something valuable out of it, I would love that.

[Doc]

A few things...

Jer- Your comment on reading comprehension is dead on. According to most researchers in a variety of disciplines (including education, psychology, and sociology), the average American reads at the 8th grade level. That is perhaps an optimistic estimate. My university's institutional review board suggests we write all of our consent forms at a 6th grade level. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised at the amount of misinformation that gets thrown about.

LSN-
More Kumbaya. There has been incredibly overwhelming empirical support for evolution. Go to any biology oriented journal database and do a search for evolution. You could read abstracts (not articles) for a full day that show convincing evidence of evolutionary processes at work. Interestingly, there is also work in sociology and psychology that has begun to support these positions, as well.

As for the discussion on academics and its practicioners...

I'm a little offended about the suggestion that it's up to academics to explain how Islam could cause people to cut off others' heads. That is simply not academic inquiry, nor is it academia's place. If already know what you want to find you aren't doing research, you're simply finding confirmatory evidence of something you already think is accurate. Rejecting that is not disengagement, it's the difference between scholarship and editorializing. If you want academics to be editorial columnists, your view of academics is quite flawed. That's not cowardly, that's practical. Anyone who suggests that academics are cowardly needs to read just about any feminist writer, any cultural studies activist, or for a more direct picture of courage, the history of the Frankfort School. There are some who retreat to academics to hide, but the academy has changed to make this less and less possible, even in elite institutions who value pure knowledge. In the trenches, we fight anti-intellectualism every day, establishing the relevance of what we do--not because of our own feelings of self-importance, but because we can make a small difference in the world through what we do. To me that's anything but cowardly, particularly in the academic climate of the 21st century, where many people want a job certificate, but don't want to actually open their minds about the simple realities of something like evolution.

Similarly, I'm offended that anyone thinks social science is a "self-feeding business." I suggest you read something current, including the abundant research that discusses the psychology of obesity. More importantly, ask policy makers, direct care specialists, social workers, job counselors, organizational consultants, and human resource specialists if social science research is irrelevant and only for the eggheads. They couldn't do their jobs as effectively without our supposedly self-indulgent scholarship on which they base their practices. I'm especially shocked that anyone who is in clinical practice would suggest this. Most clinical orientations are like medicine, where practices respond to academic findings. More practically, nearly every social science discipline has an applied orientation represented in their curricula, the sole purpose of which is to show how social sciences are relevant to the world outside of academia.

To be true to the topic of the thread...
The retreat from intellectualism is really reflected in textbooks. It's sad when school isn't necessarily the place for intellectual exercise anymore. I think it's very sad that politicians and judges, rather than teachers, increasingly determine what shcools teach. The more we patronize and devalue public school teachers and the contributions they make, the further we retreat from the value of knowlege and the pursuits of it. On a much more optimistic note, it makes me very happy to know that a fighter like Jer may soon be one that is helping public education fight back. I would certainly support him in the trenches of public school science. :D

[LoE]

Words from Rafael (Silver Springs, MD)...

We were created for a purpose

The bible talks about creation in the light who God is and what we are to Him.

We are a product of an intelligent design. In fact, in the article, it says: ...But there is a wealth of science that would support intelligent design, and that is not taught," she said.

Which brings me to a second important point - our accountability to a God who created us. If you read closely, God makes clear what his purpose was two fold:

Gen 1 (accountability to the earth)

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Gen 2 (accountability to God our creator)

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."


So what does this all mean? It means that we came into being for a purpose, we were designed for a reason. If we deviate from that plan or purpose, we sin. We don’t just sin against ourselves, or our environment, we also sin against God.


The introduction of the theory of evolution takes God out of the entire subject. Taken out of that subject also was the accountability to God and the refusal to acknowledge the consequences of sin.

I cant make arguments like how Anon Amos makes because I don’t quite think as intelligently as she does, but I do know from a practical viewpoint, having a God in my life, and being aware that I am accountable for all my actions keeps me in place with the rest of society and the world around me.

There are consequences for sin. Whether you believe in it or not, there is always a penalty that one gets when they sin. From a small instance of taking candy from a candy store, to robbing somebody’s identity, to taking somebody’s virginity - there will be people who will be hurt.

Lives are now being affected by the destruction of our environment, and sad to say there are also species of plants and animals we may never know have existed because of men who ravaged the landscape to hunt for valuable minerals and natural resources.

Do you see my point? And if we allow God to be removed from the thinking of our young children, they will not know how to be responsible for themselves and for others and our future responsibility to our creator. Keeping the subject of God in schools is what will make this world a better place, because in the end of it all, our judgment awaits.

******************************

Gee. I wonder who he voted for? :)

[LoE]

Valerie from Grand Terrace, CA wrote..

I cannot understand HOW anyone who claims to educate themselves on every possible level before making a conclusion can say Creationism has not been scientifically proven!

It HAS! There are MANY books out there, If one cares to look into the other side of the story and recognise scientific facts!

Free, I agree with one thing you said, that evolution is more religion than science!

If you really care to see some SCIENTIFIC proof that evolution is the stupid theory...

Here are some good books:

"BONES Of Contention" By Marvin L Lubenow

"The Creator Beyond Time & Space" By Mark Eastman, M. D.

and Cuck Missler.

"In The Beginning" By Walt Brown

Like I said there are many, very interesting to read and informative!

Also, How anyone understanding the complexities of DNA can assume it possibly formed from some random blob..... idiotic.

Enjoy!

********************'

Oh boy!! :roll:

[A_Non_Ymous]

The testimonials from the so-called creation science people are an amusing
example of what Bertrand Russell once termed "meaningless noise," and are
roughly on a par in value with the rantings of right-wing talk show callers.

It's difficult to recall examples that exhibited less semantic, not to say scientific
rigor.

It's also difficult to imagine what sort of arm-waving they'd use to explain the
presence of "junk DNA" in the human genotype. This is another interesting
case of evolutionary processes, and it occurs in virtually every complex
animal or plant.

The notion of "intelligent design" is logically indefensible. I suggest you take
a look at Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason for starters on the
notion of first causes and such.

LSN