From Syracuse, With Anti-Intellectualism

Aw, hell, it's a slow morning. Let's make it a twofer.

To the Editor:

I was very concerned to see on the editorial page in your Sunday paper that a high school student who aspires to be a young journalist was so closed-minded. Mr. Cal Thomas did not accuse schools of teaching students to be "gay."

The schools do teach theories that cannot be proven, one of which is evolution; and apparently (from the letter cited) another is that people are born "gay." Both of these are theories that are not provable.

Mr. Cal Thomas and many others believe that the "gay" lifestyle is not acceptable. With a little research, Dani Walters should be able to understand the other side.

I am sorry that our young adults do not research the things that they encounter before they are willing to "spike" the opinions of those that they do not agree with. Dani, to be a good journalist, you will need to look at "both sides of the story." This is the reason many taxpayers are upset with the public schools. We feel our tax dollars are being wasted on a low-standard education for our upcoming leaders.

William Bellows

There's nothing better than an ignorant anti-intellectual lecturing a budding young mind about the dangers of accepting scientific data. With a little research, Dani Walters should be able to understand the other side. With a little more research, Dani Walters should be able to point out that the other side is deluding itself with propagandized fiction.

One of the most prevalent symptoms of anti-intellectualism and unreason in America is the constant misuse of the term theory. If one does not understand the distinction between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory, one should not construct an argument around it. Certainly you shouldn't expect journalists, or even young students of journalism, to take you seriously.

Oh, and of course, I'm certain that Mr. Bellows has a valid point about the state of our educational system. If only we followed the lead of the rest of the world, which has collectively abandoned scientific psychology and evolutionary theory in favor of religious dogma and pseudoscientific nonsense.

Win Ben Stein's Crazy

Ben Stein is a funny guy. He's a sharp, well-educated guy. He's also rather batshit, something he managed to gloss over during his Comedy Central days. He's not really trying anymore, though, and the result is Expelled, a movie about how fascist, elitist scientists are silencing good researchers who advocate intelligent design. Kevin Mooney interviewed Ben about the movie, and the results are stunning. I recommend reading the whole thing, because it's a rare glimpse at the broken logic behind intelligent design as a scientific theory without a lot of nationalist yelling and bible thumping. What I mean is, it's smart, but obviously very wrong.

Stein seems to be basing his argument on the complexity of the cell... basically, his argument is that the mechanics of a cell are so complex that intelligent design becomes the only theory that can explain it. Intelligent design is, of course, religion or mythology... regardless of who you believe the designer to be, you believe in it without direct evidence. That's okay. I do too. There's nothing wrong with faith. But faith is not science, and can not further science. Historically, faith often takes over where science ends. The ancient Greeks explained the eruptions of Mt. Etna as being the result of Typhon, a dragon-like titan, being buried beneath it. Physical ailments, and even more recently psychological conditions, were often considered to be caused by demonic possession. Now, when science is not yet able to explain every detail about the mechanics of the cell, there are those who say, "See? It must be the work of intelligent design!" It's all based on the same substitution of faith for science. Simply refusing to give Typhon a proper name doesn't make a belief in him any more suitable for discerning the intricacies of tectonic forces.

Frankly, Ben's just preaching to the choir. Nothing he says is likely to sway anyone who isn't already convinced that intelligent design is actual science. The most dangerous part of his rhetoric is his repeated claim that the first amendment rights of intelligent design advocates are being abused.

And I said, this to us - at least to me, I don't know what it is to other people in the film - is a bit like the Civil Rights movement. You want to have freedom, where our goal is freedom. We want freedom. We want all our rights, not some of them, all our rights to free speech. We want them here in America, and we want them now.

It is ridiculous to claim that any of this falls under the first amendment. Intelligent design advocates are free to discuss their beliefs anywhere they like. They can hold rallies around their beliefs, and introduce them as arguments during curriculum planning. They can even make movies about their beliefs starring an actor still coasting from a bit part in a 1986 John Hughes film. The constitution certainly guarantees them that right. It does not guarantee their right to be taken seriously by anyone interested in real science, however. They're not really angry because they can't express their beliefs; they can. They're angry because the rest of us are allowed to roll our eyes and ignore them.