as a graduate student i am embarassed that this article showed up in the WSJ

[Agnostos Insania]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes, like I said, stamping out religion and opposing views at every possible opportunity.

Well, maybe college was different for you when/where you went to it, but there are many classes that teach about religion nowadays. Philosophy, history, social studies, etc. It's an accepted (and often required) curriculum. The only time people of science get upset is when people try to sneak religion into a place where it never belongs, a science classroom.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Well, I'm embarassed for America that this is even a debate.

Agreed.

How far we have fallen off the horse called science that we are considering teaching Intelligent Design as a viable scientific theory. It's sad that most people don't even realize what a theory is and they think it is something different than a law. We need to push harder in the science department lest we fall even farther behind in the field of science. Science is the only way we'll be competitive in this world of outsourcing to the cheapest manufacturers. We have the means to do it. Tons of immigrants flock here to take advantage of our great science departments but we need to get more American children interested in science.

 

[Banzai042]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I personally could care less what people believe, Genx's comments aside, I think most people who aren't in favor of ID would agree with me. I have no problem with whatever this guy believes, the only thing that bothers me is that he is a Professor who apparently doesn't understand the most basic arguments against his ideas. When we're talking religion, I am the LAST person you are going to find saying your beliefs are wrong. It's religion, it's opinion. But when you take your beliefs into the realm of science, I have no problem saying that you are wrong. Because it's no longer an opinion matter, it's no longer about religion. It's about science, and in science, people are right or wrong. If you want to have a scientific discussion, you can't hide behind your religion and call your critics intolerant. That's not how scientific debate works.

So what you're saying is that it's ok for you to tell me "well it's impossible that anything other than pure chance made everything as it is today", which is what barring ID from classrooms is in effect, but I'm infringing on student's rights if I say "It's possible that it was pure chance, however it's also possible that an intelligent force guided things along in some manner, make up your own mind as you see fit." Are students only allowed to have their own opinions when they are not in class?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I personally could care less what people believe, Genx's comments aside, I think most people who aren't in favor of ID would agree with me. I have no problem with whatever this guy believes, the only thing that bothers me is that he is a Professor who apparently doesn't understand the most basic arguments against his ideas. When we're talking religion, I am the LAST person you are going to find saying your beliefs are wrong. It's religion, it's opinion. But when you take your beliefs into the realm of science, I have no problem saying that you are wrong. Because it's no longer an opinion matter, it's no longer about religion. It's about science, and in science, people are right or wrong. If you want to have a scientific discussion, you can't hide behind your religion and call your critics intolerant. That's not how scientific debate works.

So what you're saying is that it's ok for you to tell me "well it's impossible that anything other than pure chance made everything as it is today", which is what barring ID from classrooms is in effect, but I'm infringing on student's rights if I say "It's possible that it was pure chance, however it's also possible that an intelligent force guided things along in some manner, make up your own mind as you see fit." Are students only allowed to have their own opinions when they are not in class?

An intelligent force is not science. When there is actual scientific evidence of it, then it can be taught in a science class but until then they should just teach science in a science class. Leave talk about an intelligent designer to a religions class.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, this part wasn't so bad:

Most of the courses, like Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.

However, the part about it not being all and the large number of students entering college thinking the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old is disturbing.

I actually find the intolerance people show towards people of faith disturbing in this country more than somebody thinking the world is 10,000 years old. The guy thinking the world is 10,000 years old is harmless while people who are intolerant usually end up trying to trample peoples rights and silence them.

The guy who believes the Earth is only 10000 years old isn't nearly as scary as the guys who insist on teaching our children that the earth is 10000 years old.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw before this turns into a flame war I want to clarify what I am arguing in this thread. I am not arguing for or against ID or the theory of evolution. I dont know enough about ID to warrant a valid opinion and I think the theory of evolution from what i have read looks sound.

What I am arguing is the recent trend of intolerance to the point of mocking people who have faith in this country. If somebody doesnt believe in the way of science they are mocked, silenced, or discredited.

I had to re-read your post several times. I believe you meant to say:

"mocking people of faith in this country" OR
"mocking people of faith, in this country" OR
"mocking people in this country, who have religious faith".

I don't believe anyone here is being unpatriotic and mocking those that don't believe in the U.S., and the freedom of religion for which it stands...

Future Shock

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Banzai042
So what you're saying is that it's ok for you to tell me "well it's impossible that anything other than pure chance made everything as it is today", which is what barring ID from classrooms is in effect, but I'm infringing on student's rights if I say "It's possible that it was pure chance, however it's also possible that an intelligent force guided things along in some manner, make up your own mind as you see fit." Are students only allowed to have their own opinions when they are not in class?

No, what he's trying to tell you is that neo-Darwinism is the only accepted scientific theory that explains why organisms evolve. Therefore, it is the only theory taught in science classes (aside from things like Lamarckism which is taught as a discarded scientific theory of evolution).
ID is not a scientific theory, it is based on faith, therefore, teaching it in a public school science classroom violates the First Amendment - it is endorsing religion.
Students are allowed to have any opinion they want - but they need to recognize when their opinions are scientific and when they're faith-based.
Furthermore, neo-Darwinism is not random. If you want to see the hand of God in the mechanism of evolution, that's fine - but that's not science, it's faith.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, this part wasn't so bad:

Most of the courses, like Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.

However, the part about it not being all and the large number of students entering college thinking the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old is disturbing.

There's really nothing wrong with seminars on that, but his mouse trap thing ais a false analogy...

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Strk
Well, this part wasn't so bad:

Most of the courses, like Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.

However, the part about it not being all and the large number of students entering college thinking the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old is disturbing.

There's really nothing wrong with seminars on that, but his mouse trap thing ais a false analogy...

Aye, a seminar is a great place for a topic like ID. Hopefully, it will remain that the seminars are the closest place they will get to a science class.

 

[dannybin1742]

I thought you were a Biochemist? You are just a student?

grad students are students, wake up,

i can say i'm a biochemist because i have a bachlors in biochemistry, look at the sig, i'm the second named author on that work, as a side note i have a second paper thats being reviewed right now, strictly mutagenesis with structural implications, andi've coauthored a third paper-- strictly Xray crystallography

 

[dannybin1742]

this is pretty funny, just like a good republican, attack the messenger.

based on your comments, i highly doubt you've ever stepped into the hallway of higher learning

i'm a biochemist because i have a bachelors degree in biochemistry, graduated may 04


i am now in grad school to get a phd in biochemistry

when i graduate i'll have doctorate in biochemistry will graduate in 07

here is my information from ISU


Name: BIN******* DANIEL JOSEPH
Office Phone: 515-294-****
Home Phone: 515-451-6***
Email: dannybin@ia*****.edu
Department: BIOCHEMISTRY, BIOPHYSICS & MOLC BIOL-LAS
Title: GRAD ASST-RA
Office Address: **** MOLEC BIOL
City/State: AMES, IA 50011-3260
Home Address: 2616 STANGE RD *****
City/State: AMES, IA 50010-7133


i didn't reply sooner because i went home from work, ate dinner, graded papers, worked out, and went to bed, this forum is not my life, but i like browsing it

 

[SparkyJJO]

evolution is a theory, is it not? Why can't the schools teach it as it is, a theory, instead of fact? Why is it so terrible for intelligent design to be taught alongside of the theory of evolution? Evolution hasn't been proved right, there are still many unanswered questions and holes. Intelligent design according to many is the same way, so why not teach both as theories with no bias? Is that really such a hard thing to do?

 

[Tangerines]

You probably don't understand what a scientific theory is. It's a set of hypotheses that have been proven accurate over time. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent Design is speculation.

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Guess what, I am a Christian

No, you're not a Christian yet. You're a student until you get a job as a Christian.

 

[dannybin1742]

ID is not science, see previous posts on other threads like this one

still waiting for SOG to reply to my pwnge back there, and oh yeah i have a job, i get payed 20k per year to do research......there goes your employment theory

what does my job entail?

cloning gene from organisms
genomic or mRNA isolation from prokaryotes or tissues from mammals
organic synthesis of compounds my protein uses
isolation of recombinant protein
isolation of chemicals my protein makes
synthesis of labeled conmpounds
small molecule NMR
protein x-ray crystallography
production of chemically competent cells (BL21 and DH5a)
mutagenesis
LC-MS
MALDI-TOFF
N-terminal sequencing
sizing chromatography

now shut your pi H01E and stop attacking the messenger

 

[Banzai042]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Banzai042
So what you're saying is that it's ok for you to tell me "well it's impossible that anything other than pure chance made everything as it is today", which is what barring ID from classrooms is in effect, but I'm infringing on student's rights if I say "It's possible that it was pure chance, however it's also possible that an intelligent force guided things along in some manner, make up your own mind as you see fit." Are students only allowed to have their own opinions when they are not in class?

No, what he's trying to tell you is that neo-Darwinism is the only accepted scientific theory that explains why organisms evolve. Therefore, it is the only theory taught in science classes (aside from things like Lamarckism which is taught as a discarded scientific theory of evolution).
ID is not a scientific theory, it is based on faith, therefore, teaching it in a public school science classroom violates the First Amendment - it is endorsing religion.
Students are allowed to have any opinion they want - but they need to recognize when their opinions are scientific and when they're faith-based.
Furthermore, neo-Darwinism is not random. If you want to see the hand of God in the mechanism of evolution, that's fine - but that's not science, it's faith.

Ok, lets see if i can rephrase my point since i think you missed it. If a student gets a question about evolution on a test that says something like "How did evolution happen", asking the student to explain the process by which evolution occured, and instead of putting down the answer the teacher told them in class the student puts down something along the lines of "Evolution was guided by an intelligent force looking to help existing species adapt better to their surroundings" or something like that. Should they be told that the question is wrong? If so, how is that not religious intolerence. After all, if a student is told that they are not allowed to have the beleif that God exists in some form in the classroom how is that any different from activly endorsing the idea that there is no God, which can be classified as a religious beleif in itself. Furthermore, the teacher has no way at all of proving that the student is wrong using science. They cannot prove with one shred of evidence that there is no way that an itelligent force guided evolution. mentioning ID as a possibility in the classroom is not anywhere close to the same as saying it's a fact, it's simply the admission that we can't know for certain either way. The backlash of the scientific community seems to be a reaction of fear, fear that they will loose their monopoly on telling us how everything works, even though they can't prove in the slightest that supporters of ID are wrong.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
:roll: Nice try, but he is a student learning about those things so he can become a Biochemist. He is not one until his job is to do that instead of being taugh/leaning it.

I agree, just because you know how to play football it doesn't mean you a football player.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
evolution is a theory, is it not? Why can't the schools teach it as it is, a theory, instead of fact? Why is it so terrible for intelligent design to be taught alongside of the theory of evolution? Evolution hasn't been proved right, there are still many unanswered questions and holes. Intelligent design according to many is the same way, so why not teach both as theories with no bias? Is that really such a hard thing to do?

Actually,

Natural Selection = FACT
Micro Evolution = FACT
Macro Evolution = Were still working on that one. But we do have some great ideas that we are still experimenting with.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2541393.stm
http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-04/cover/

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
evolution is a theory, is it not? Why can't the schools teach it as it is, a theory, instead of fact? Why is it so terrible for intelligent design to be taught alongside of the theory of evolution? Evolution hasn't been proved right, there are still many unanswered questions and holes. Intelligent design according to many is the same way, so why not teach both as theories with no bias? Is that really such a hard thing to do?

This has been beaten into the ground so many times.

ID is not science. It is a concept of an idea "hey gee wiz, everything sure is complex, it must have been designed by something...which has always been. No...the universe can't have always been...that's just crazy!" created in politics to inflitrate science classes.

What's both hilarious and saddening is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but ID was created in response to a belief that it does make a claim about the start of life.

As ID is not science, it sure as hell doesn't belong in a science class. A theorey has to be able to be tested in some way, simply thinking: "hey gee wiz, everything sure is complex, it must have been designed by something...which has always been. No...the universe can't have always been...that's just crazy!" is not a test.

And trying to downplay something that has mountains of evidence simply because it's called a theorey is not exactly brilliant. Gravity and the theorey of Calculus, watch out...you're not a fact, lol. Also many signals and systems theories are being applied to make this forum and computer tech possible...but wait they are not facts.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Banzai042
So what you're saying is that it's ok for you to tell me "well it's impossible that anything other than pure chance made everything as it is today", which is what barring ID from classrooms is in effect, but I'm infringing on student's rights if I say "It's possible that it was pure chance, however it's also possible that an intelligent force guided things along in some manner, make up your own mind as you see fit." Are students only allowed to have their own opinions when they are not in class?

No, what he's trying to tell you is that neo-Darwinism is the only accepted scientific theory that explains why organisms evolve. Therefore, it is the only theory taught in science classes (aside from things like Lamarckism which is taught as a discarded scientific theory of evolution).
ID is not a scientific theory, it is based on faith, therefore, teaching it in a public school science classroom violates the First Amendment - it is endorsing religion.
Students are allowed to have any opinion they want - but they need to recognize when their opinions are scientific and when they're faith-based.
Furthermore, neo-Darwinism is not random. If you want to see the hand of God in the mechanism of evolution, that's fine - but that's not science, it's faith.

Ok, lets see if i can rephrase my point since i think you missed it. If a student gets a question about evolution on a test that says something like "How did evolution happen", asking the student to explain the process by which evolution occured, and instead of putting down the answer the teacher told them in class the student puts down something along the lines of "Evolution was guided by an intelligent force looking to help existing species adapt better to their surroundings" or something like that. Should they be told that the question is wrong? If so, how is that not religious intolerence. After all, if a student is told that they are not allowed to have the beleif that God exists in some form in the classroom how is that any different from activly endorsing the idea that there is no God, which can be classified as a religious beleif in itself. Furthermore, the teacher has no way at all of proving that the student is wrong using science. They cannot prove with one shred of evidence that there is no way that an itelligent force guided evolution. mentioning ID as a possibility in the classroom is not anywhere close to the same as saying it's a fact, it's simply the admission that we can't know for certain either way. The backlash of the scientific community seems to be a reaction of fear, fear that they will loose their monopoly on telling us how everything works, even though they can't prove in the slightest that supporters of ID are wrong.

Evolution is something that occurs, not something that occured and it's done with. Other than a few organisms, evolution occurs on a constant basis.

And the student would be wrong if he or she wrote evolution occured. (It's still occuring, so you just gave an incomplete answer and I wouldn't give partial credit )

And, ironically, you can say evolution was guided by a force - the force of nature. You also have the issue of ID is about the starting point, not what happened since. So a question about evolution shouldn't mention ID, unless you don't believe in evolution.

 

[Legend]

Exactly, ID and Evolution are not incompatible. This is the Roman Catholic Church's stance.

 

[dannybin1742]

I agree, just because you know how to play football it doesn't mean you a football player

did you not read my last post? you completely left out the fact that i have a job doing the things i listed AND i have a BS in Biochemistry, how would that not make me a biochemist and will have a phd in biochem in about 1.5 years?

if a person knows how to play football, and plays football, is he a football player?

so if a person has a degree in finance and trades stocks clients for a living, does that make them a stock broker?

doesn't sound like you are using you entire brain to think right now azazyel

here is my previous post for the lazy:

still waiting for SOG to reply to my pwnge back there, and oh yeah i have a job, i get payed 20k per year to do research......there goes your employment theory

what does my job entail?

cloning gene from organisms
genomic or mRNA isolation from prokaryotes or tissues from mammals
organic synthesis of compounds my protein uses
isolation of recombinant protein
isolation of chemicals my protein makes
synthesis of labeled conmpounds
small molecule NMR
protein x-ray crystallography
production of chemically competent cells (BL21 and DH5a)
mutagenesis
LC-MS
MALDI-TOFF
N-terminal sequencing
sizing chromatography

here is my deal: I graduated in may 04 with a BS degree in Biochemistry, took the gre and biochem gre -scored well, i was then admitted to the phd program here in biochemistry, i get payed 20k per year to work toward a thesis (independent research), school pays my graduate tuition every year

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Banzai042
So what you're saying is that it's ok for you to tell me "well it's impossible that anything other than pure chance made everything as it is today", which is what barring ID from classrooms is in effect, but I'm infringing on student's rights if I say "It's possible that it was pure chance, however it's also possible that an intelligent force guided things along in some manner, make up your own mind as you see fit." Are students only allowed to have their own opinions when they are not in class?

No, what he's trying to tell you is that neo-Darwinism is the only accepted scientific theory that explains why organisms evolve. Therefore, it is the only theory taught in science classes (aside from things like Lamarckism which is taught as a discarded scientific theory of evolution).
ID is not a scientific theory, it is based on faith, therefore, teaching it in a public school science classroom violates the First Amendment - it is endorsing religion.
Students are allowed to have any opinion they want - but they need to recognize when their opinions are scientific and when they're faith-based.
Furthermore, neo-Darwinism is not random. If you want to see the hand of God in the mechanism of evolution, that's fine - but that's not science, it's faith.

Ok, lets see if i can rephrase my point since i think you missed it. If a student gets a question about evolution on a test that says something like "How did evolution happen", asking the student to explain the process by which evolution occured, and instead of putting down the answer the teacher told them in class the student puts down something along the lines of "Evolution was guided by an intelligent force looking to help existing species adapt better to their surroundings" or something like that. Should they be told that the question is wrong? If so, how is that not religious intolerence. After all, if a student is told that they are not allowed to have the beleif that God exists in some form in the classroom how is that any different from activly endorsing the idea that there is no God, which can be classified as a religious beleif in itself. Furthermore, the teacher has no way at all of proving that the student is wrong using science. They cannot prove with one shred of evidence that there is no way that an itelligent force guided evolution. mentioning ID as a possibility in the classroom is not anywhere close to the same as saying it's a fact, it's simply the admission that we can't know for certain either way. The backlash of the scientific community seems to be a reaction of fear, fear that they will loose their monopoly on telling us how everything works, even though they can't prove in the slightest that supporters of ID are wrong.

Evolution is something that occurs, not something that occured and it's done with. Other than a few organisms, evolution occurs on a constant basis.

And the student would be wrong if he or she wrote evolution occured. (It's still occuring, so you just gave an incomplete answer and I wouldn't give partial credit )

And, ironically, you can say evolution was guided by a force - the force of nature. You also have the issue of ID is about the starting point, not what happened since. So a question about evolution shouldn't mention ID, unless you don't believe in evolution.

evolution (evolving) happens everyday, but ID aka creationist believe that everything was programmed from the beginning by a creator, and therefore anything that nature does was just a result of a variables already programmed. I think to many people have been smoking reefer in the Matrix.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
emailed to me by one of my profs: (i don't have a subscription to the WSJ)

>> 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

"ACK! Ze Formatting! MY eyes burn! Zee goggles, zey do nuhzing!"

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

here is my deal: I graduated in may 04 with a BS degree in Biochemistry, took the gre and biochem gre -scored well, i was then admitted to the phd program here in biochemistry, i get payed 20k per year to work toward a thesis (independent research), school pays my graduate tuition every year

hey I'm not saying that you're not qualified to comment on anything but I still wouldn't consider you a biochemist. You are a PHD student doing research to one day become a Dr. of Biochemistry. It's just splitting hairs but it's how I split them sorry if it bruises the ego. My g/f did some of the stuff on your list but she calls herself a "lab technician, or lab assistant" not a Biologist or a Biochemist. (She has a BS in Biology)