Letters to the Editor

“Junk science” is an unfair label for Intelligent Design

Early in August, voters in the Kansas Republican Primary voted to remove several of the conservative members of the state board of education who were responsible for the recent controversy: “Teaching Intelligent Design.”

Lost in the media attention over all this was that teachers were not mandated to teach either scientific creationism or intelligent design theory, but “to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of [biological evolution].”

So much for the “Thinly-veiled religious machinations” that Jacob Good complained about in the 28 August edition of The Arbiter. Among the other silly allegations against ID and/or proponents thereof: “Illogical idiocy,” “hypocrisy” and “fallacious arguments;” along with plenty of quips about worldview and politics.

While Good might be embarrassed to compare his transcripts with this adherent of such “illogical idiocy” as ID, the greater mistake was to assume that ID is junk science.

Intelligent Design theory is based on the notion that we can recognize

and assess when and how intelligent agents act.

While rigorous scientific criteria have been established to test this statement, it is intuitively easy to realize that the laptop on which I type was not the result of random chance, but was constructed with a pre-determined end in mind and programmed with the systematic application of information; all by intelligent agents.

The recognition of intelligence is science and is the basis for many valid disciplines. For instance: the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence program, Crime Scene Investigation, Anthropology, Archaeology and others.

It is simply untrue to hold that ID is religion while Darwinism is science. Both have merit, and both should be taught — strengths and weaknesses. No proponent of Intelligent Design is advocating that evolution be discarded, but we are asking for a fair treatment of all the evidence.

Aaron Vandenbos, Boise Idaho

Boise State health sciences major and president of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness club

I beg you, no more lectures!

I came across some interesting information in class, stating that BSU is thinking about taking away a large majority of the lecture classes and switching to online courses.

Do they have any idea of how this is going to hinder the students?

Every student, who has paid a grand amount of money for their education, expects to receive an education that fits their needs.

Whether that is lectures, labs, or separate time with the teacher. A large issue that this poses is the certain classes (such as math, science, art, etc.) that require much more than just visuals on a computer screen. A person will most likely not receive the amount of knowledge that they could retain if they were in a lecture.

I don’t think the interests of the students are being viewed very highly and seem to be left out when it comes to the decisions that affect us the most. The classes that are online do benefit others but that does not mean it will benefit everybody!

Although there are the perks of not paying for a permit, housing or gas to get to school, we will be missing out on the most crucial time of our education.

If this is not posted, which I am not expecting, I think it would be an interesting article to look into.

This is going to affect every student in one way or another and the sooner people know maybe the sooner some action will be taken on the subject.

Sharon Swartz

Boise Idaho

Related Posts:

1. Letters to the Editor
2. Letters to the Editor
3. Intelligent Design gets ‘Expelled’
4. Letters to the Editor
5. Evolution is just as religious as Intelligent Design