dannybin1742
Platinum Member
emailed to me by one of my profs: (i don't have a subscription to the WSJ)
sorry for the formatting, this is the onlyway i could cut and paste it from my email.
anyways as a graduate student in biochem (here at ISU), i'm embarassed that this appeared in the WSJ, it gives our university a black eye in terms of getting more students to come to school here (the whole living in iowa argument, fundies...etc....)
Mr. Ingebritsen, doesn't even do real research anymore....what a hack
a mouse trap with a missing part is nothing more than a non-functional mouse trap, there are no simmilarities between that and a living cell, many many genes can be removed and cells can still be viable
>> PAGE ONE
>
>>
>> Darwinian Struggle
>
>> At Some Colleges,
>
>> Classes Questioning
>
>> Evolution Take Hold
>
>> 'Intelligent Design' Doctrine
>
>> Leaves Room for Creator;
>
>> In Iowa, Science on Defense
>
>> A Professor Turns Heckler
>
>> By DANIEL GOLDEN
>
>> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>
>> November 14, 2005; Page A1
>
>> AMES, Iowa -- With a magician's flourish, Thomas Ingebritsen pulled
>
>> six mousetraps from a shopping bag and handed them out to students in
>
>> his "God and Science" seminar. At his instruction, they removed one
>
>> component -- either the spring, hammer or holding bar -- from each
>
>> mousetrap. They then tested the traps, which all failed to snap.
>
>>
>> "Is the mousetrap irreducibly complex?" the Iowa State University
>
>> molecular biologist asked the class.
>
>>
>>
>> "Yes, definitely," said Jason Mueller, a junior biochemistry major
>
>> wearing a cross around his neck.
>
>>
>> That's the answer Mr. Ingebritsen was looking for. He was using the
>
>> mousetrap to support the antievolution doctrine known as intelligent
>
>> design. Like a mousetrap, the associate professor suggested, living
>
>> cells are "irreducibly complex" -- they can't fulfill their functions
>
>> without all of their parts. Hence, they could not have evolved bit by
>
>> bit through natural selection but must have been devised by a creator.
>
>>
>> "This is the closest to a science class on campus where anybody's
>
>> going to talk about intelligent design," the fatherly looking
>
>> associate professor told his class. "At least for now."
>
>>
>> Overshadowed by attacks on evolution in high-school science curricula,
>
>> intelligent design is gaining a precarious and hotly contested
>
>> foothold in American higher education. Intelligent-design courses have
>
>> cropped up at the state universities of Minnesota, Georgia and New
>
>> Mexico, as well as Iowa State, and at private institutions such as
>
>> Wake Forest and Carnegie Mellon. Most of the courses, like Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.
>
>> Many colleges have also hosted lectures by advocates of the doctrine.
>
>>
>> The spread of these courses reflects the growing influence of
>
>> evangelical Christianity in academia, as in other aspects of American
>
>> culture. Last week, the Kansas state board of education adopted new
>
>> science guidelines that question evolution.
>
>>
>> Intelligent design does not demand a literal reading of the Bible.
>
>> Unlike traditional creationists, most adherents agree with the
>
>> prevailing scientific view that the earth is billions of years old.
>
>> And they allow that the designer is not necessarily the Christian God.
>
>>
>> Still, professors with evangelical beliefs, including some eminent
>
>> scientists, have initiated most of the courses and lectures, often
>
>> with start-up funding from the John Templeton Foundation. Established
>
>> by famous stockpicker Sir John Templeton, the foundation promotes
>
>> exploring the boundary of theology and science. It fostered the
>
>> movement's growth with grants of $10,000 and up for guest speakers,
>
>> library materials, research and conferences.
>
>>
>> Intelligent design's beachhead on campus has provoked a backlash.
>
>> Universities have discouraged teaching of intelligent design in
>
>> science classes and canceled lectures on the topic. Last month,
>
>> University of Idaho President Tim White flatly declared that teaching
>
>> of "views that differ from evolution" in science courses is
>
>> "inappropriate."
>
>>
>> Citing what they describe as overwhelming evidence for evolution,
>
>> mainstream scientists say no one has the right to teach wrong science,
>
>> or religion in the guise of science. "My interest is in making sure
>
>> that intelligent design and creationism do not make the kind of
>
>> inroads at the university level that they're making at the K-12
>
>> level," says Leslie McFadden, chair of earth and planetary sciences at
>
>> the University of New Mexico, who led a successful fight there to
>
>> re-classify a course on intelligent design from science to humanities.
>
>> "You can't teach whatever you damn well please. If you're a geologist,
>
>> and you decide that the earth's core is made of green cheese, you
>
>> can't teach that."
>
>>
>> At Iowa State, where Mr. Ingebritsen teaches, more than 120 faculty
>
>> signed a petition this year condemning "all attempts to represent
>
>> intelligent design as a scientific endeavor." In response, 47
>
>> Christian faculty and staff members, including Mr. Ingebritsen, signed
>
>> a statement calling on the university to protect their freedom to
>
>> discuss intelligent design.
>
>>
>> At stake in this dispute are the minds of the next generation of
>
>> scientists and science teachers. Some are arriving at college with
>
>> conflicting accounts of mankind's origins at home, in church and at
>
>> school. Many of Iowa State's 21,000-plus undergraduates come from
>
>> fundamentalist backgrounds and belong to Christian student groups on
>
>> campus.
>
>>
>> According to an informal survey by James Colbert, an associate
>
>> professor who teaches introductory biology at Iowa State, one-third of
>
>> ISU freshmen planning to major in biology agree with the statement
>
>> that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at
>
>> one time within the last 10,000 years." Although it's widely assumed
>
>> that college-bound students learn about evolution in high school, Mr.
>
>> Colbert says that isn't always the case.
>
>>
>> "I've had frequent conversations with freshmen who told me that their
>
>> high-school biology teachers skipped the evolution chapter," he says.
>
>> "I would say that high-school teachers in many cases feel intimidated
>
>> about teaching evolution. They're concerned they're going to be
>
>> criticized by parents, students and school boards."
>
>>
>> Avoiding Confrontations
>
>>
>> Warren Dolphin, who also teaches introductory biology at Iowa State,
>
>> says he's begun describing evolution to his class as a hypothesis
>
>> rather than as a fact to avoid confrontations with creationist
>
>> students. "I don't want to get into a nonproductive debate," he says.
>
>> "What I'm saying is so contrary to what they're hearing in their small
>
>> town, their school, their church that I won't convert them in 40
>
>> lectures by a pointy-headed professor. The most I can do is get them
>
>> to question their beliefs."
>
>>
>> In a 1999 fund-raising proposal, the Discovery Institute -- an
>
>> intelligent design think tank in Seattle -- outlined what it called a
>
>> "wedge strategy" to replace the "stifling dominance of the materialist
>
>> worldview" with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic
>
>> conviction." Its five-year objectives included making intelligent
>
>> design "an accepted alternative in the sciences" and the "dominant
>
>> perspective" at two universities which weren't identified.
>
>>
>> While these goals weren't met, some intelligent-design advocates
>
>> associated with the Discovery Institute, found a receptive ear at the
>
>> Pennsylvania-based Templeton Foundation. Between 1994 and 2002, the
>
>> foundation funded nearly 800 courses, including several on intelligent
>
>> design. It has also supported research by William Dembski, who headed
>
>> an intelligent-design center at Baylor University, and Guillermo
>
>> Gonzalez, co-author of a 2004 book, "The Privileged Planet." The book
>
>> claimed to discern a designer from the earth's position in the cosmos.
>
>> Mr. Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State,
>
>> received $58,000 from the foundation over three years.
>
>>
>> Foundation staff members now say that intelligent design hasn't
>
>> yielded as much research as they'd hoped. Mr. Templeton, who chairs
>
>> the foundation and will turn 93 later this month, believes "the
>
>> creation-evolution argument is a waste of time," says Paul Wason, the
>
>> foundation's director of science and religion programs. Mr. Wason adds
>
>> that Mr. Templeton is more interested in applying the scientific
>
>> method to exploring spiritual questions such as the nature of
>
>> forgiveness. Nevertheless, staff members remain reluctant to dismiss
>
>> intelligent design entirely, in part because the doctrine's popularity
>
>> could help achieve the foundation's goal of persuading evangelical
>
>> Christians to pursue scientific careers. The foundation also complains
>
>> that academia is too quick to censor the doctrine.
>
>>
>> Templeton-funded proponents of intelligent design include Christopher
>
>> Macosko, a professor of chemical engineering at University of
>
>> Minnesota. Mr. Macosko, a member of the National Academy of
>
>> Engineering, became a born-again Christian as an assistant professor
>
>> after a falling-out with a business partner. For eight years, he's
>
>> taught a freshman seminar: "Life: By Chance or By Design?" According
>
>> to Mr. Macosko, "All the students who finish my course say, 'Gee, I
>
>> didn't realize how shaky evolution is.' "
>
>>
>> Another recipient of Templeton funding, Harold Delaney, a professor of
>
>> psychology at the University of New Mexico, taught an honors seminar
>
>> in 2003 and 2004 on "Origins: Science, Faith and Philosophy."
>
>> Co-taught by Michael Kent, a scientist at Sandia National
>
>> Laboratories, the course included readings on both sides as well as a
>
>> guest lecture by David Keller, another intelligent-design advocate on
>
>> the New Mexico faculty.
>
>>
>> The university initially approved the course as qualifying students
>
>> for science credit, as had been the custom with many interdisciplinary
>
>> courses. Then the earth sciences chairman, Mr. McFadden, heard about
>
>> the course. In an email to the chairman of biology, he described Mr.
>
>> Delaney and Mr. Kent each as a "known creationist." The course, Mr.
>
>> McFadden wrote, was "clearly 'designed' to show that 'intelligent
>
>> design' is legitimate science.' " He added that he was "absolutely
>
>> opposed" to classifying "Origins" as a science course.
>
>>
>> The biology chairman and other faculty members agreed, and Reed
>
>> Dasenbrock, then dean of arts and sciences, re-categorized "Origins"
>
>> as a humanities course.
>
>>
>> Mr. Delaney complained in a letter to the director of the honors
>
>> program that the reclassification was "a violation of my academic
>
>> freedom." But Mr. Dasenbrock, now interim provost, says the principle
>
>> of academic freedom was not at stake in the decision. "People didn't
>
>> buy it as science," he said.
>
>>
>> The controversy didn't end there. Once the course started, a retired
>
>> neuroscientist, Gerald Weiss, sat in on several classes, passing out
>
>> evolution literature and heckling the teachers. Intelligent design is
>
>> "deception," Mr. Weiss said. "They had the students in the palm of
>
>> their hands. I wasn't welcome at all, and I finally gave it up."
>
>>
>> Despite the humanities classification, Mr. Delaney says, other faculty
>
>> continued to object to "Origins" and regard it as an embarrassment. He
>
>> doesn't plan to offer the course again.
>
>>
>> Some well-respected scientists have fostered the spread of intelligent
>
>> design. Henry F. Schaefer, director of the Center for Computational
>
>> Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia, has written or
>
>> co-authored 1,082 scientific papers and is one of the world's most
>
>> widely cited chemists by other researchers.
>
>>
>> Mr. Schaefer teaches a freshman seminar at Georgia entitled: "Science
>
>> and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?" He has spoken on religion
>
>> and science at many American universities, and gave the "John M.
>
>> Templeton Lecture" -- funded by the foundation -- at Case Western
>
>> Reserve in 1992, Montana State in 1999, and Princeton and Carnegie
>
>> Mellon in 2004. "Those who favor the standard evolutionary model are
>
>> in a state of panic," he says. "Intelligent design truly terrorizes
>
>> them."
>
>>
>> This past April, the school of science at Duquesne University, a
>
>> Catholic university in Pittsburgh, abruptly canceled its sponsorship
>
>> of a lecture by Mr. Schaefer in its distinguished scientist series.
>
>> According to David Seybert, dean of the Bayer School of Natural and
>
>> Environmental Sciences, Mr. Schaefer was invited at the suggestion of
>
>> a faculty member belonging to a Christian fellowship group on campus.
>
>> The invitation was withdrawn after several biology professors
>
>> complained that Mr. Schaefer planned to speak in favor of intelligent
>
>> design. The school wanted to avoid "legitimizing intelligent design
>
>> from a scientific perspective," Mr. Seybert said. Faculty members were
>
>> also concerned that top students might not apply to Duquesne if they
>
>> thought it endorsed intelligent design. Mr. Schaefer gave his lecture
>
>> -- entitled "The Big Bang, Stephen Hawking, and God" -- to a packed
>
>> hall at Duquesne under the auspices of a Christian group instead.
>
>>
>> High Tensions
>
>>
>> Tensions are running high at Iowa State, with Mr. Ingebritsen playing
>
>> a key role. Joining the Iowa State faculty in 1986, he specialized in
>
>> studying how cells communicate, but ended his research about 10 years
>
>> ago and took up developing online biology courses. Shortly before that
>
>> career change, he had converted from agnosticism to evangelical
>
>> Christianity. As he explored whether -- and how -- modern science
>
>> could be compatible with his religious beliefs, intelligent design
>
>> intrigued him.
>
>>
>> He taught "God and Science" for three years starting in 2000 without
>
>> incident. But when he again proposed the seminar in 2003, members of
>
>> the honors curriculum committee sought outside opinions from
>
>> colleagues in biology and philosophy of science. They reported that
>
>> the course relied on a textbook by a Christian publisher and slighted
>
>> evolution. "I have serious worries about whether a course almost
>
>> exclusively focused on the defense of Christian views is appropriate
>
>> at a secular, state institution," wrote Michael Bishop, then
>
>> philosophy chairman. The committee rejected the course by a 5-4 vote.
>
>>
>> After protesting to a higher-level administrator to no avail, Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen revised the syllabus, added a mainstream textbook, and
>
>> resumed teaching the course in 2004.
>
>>
>> On the Spot
>
>>
>> On a brisk Thursday in October, following the mousetrap gambit, Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen displayed diagrams on an overhead projector of
>
>> "irreducibly complex" structures such as bacterial flagellum, the
>
>> motor that helps bacteria move about. The flagellum, he said,
>
>> constitutes strong evidence for intelligent design.
>
>>
>> One student, Mary West, disputed this conclusion. "These systems could
>
>> have arisen through natural selection," the senior said, citing the
>
>> pro-evolution textbook.
>
>>
>> "That doesn't explain this system," Mr. Ingebritsen answered. "You're
>
>> a scientist. How did the flagellum evolve? Do you have a compelling
>
>> argument for how it came into being?"
>
>>
>> Ms. West looked down, avoiding his eye. "Nope," she muttered. The
>
>> textbook, "Finding Darwin's God," by Kenneth Miller, a biology
>
>> professor at Brown University, asserts that a flagellum isn't
>
>> irreducibly complex because it can function to some degree even
>
>> without all of its parts. This suggests to evolutionists that the
>
>> flagellum could have developed over time, adding parts that made it
>
>> work better.
>
>>
>> During a class break, Ms. West says that Mr. Ingebritsen often puts
>
>> her on the spot. "He knows I'm not religious," she says. "In the
>
>> beginning, we talked about our religious philosophy. Everyone else in
>
>> the class is some sort of a Christian. I'm not." The course helps her
>
>> understand "the arguments on the other side," she adds, but she would
>
>> like to see Mr. Ingebritsen co-teach it with a proponent of evolution.
>
>>
>> Ms. West and other honors students will have a chance to hear the
>
>> opposing viewpoint next semester. Counter-programming against Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen, three faculty members are preparing a seminar titled:
>
>> "The Nature of Science: Why the Overwhelming Consensus of Science is
>
>> that Intelligent Design is not Good Science."
>
>>
>> Write to Daniel Golden at dan.golden@wsj.com
>
sorry for the formatting, this is the onlyway i could cut and paste it from my email.
anyways as a graduate student in biochem (here at ISU), i'm embarassed that this appeared in the WSJ, it gives our university a black eye in terms of getting more students to come to school here (the whole living in iowa argument, fundies...etc....)
Mr. Ingebritsen, doesn't even do real research anymore....what a hack
a mouse trap with a missing part is nothing more than a non-functional mouse trap, there are no simmilarities between that and a living cell, many many genes can be removed and cells can still be viable
