Click here to read Jelani Sims' column, "OU museum mishandling intelligent design documentary"
THIS LETTER IS IN RESPONSE TO JELANI SIMS’ WEDNESDAY COLUMN, “OU MUSEUM MISHANDLING INTELLIGENT DESIGN DOCUMENTARY.”
First, I would like to agree with Mr. Sims that universities should be settings for the “free exchange of ideas,” but those ideas need to be backed by evidence and be able to stand to debate and questioning.
The theory of evolution has satisfied these time and time again, while intelligent design has consistently failed them. Mr. Sims has a common misconception of evolution as “just a theory.” A scientific theory is an over arching, uniting idea that explains a number of phenomena (which evolution is) and is not a “layman’s theory,” or an unproven idea. In fact, the Cambrian Explosion actually does support evolution, but in the form of punctuated equilibrium, rather than gradualism presented in the article. The film made by the Discovery Institute appears to be nothing more than another seemingly complex event or mechanism that, on the surface, evolution cannot explain.
Digging a little deeper, however, shows that this is just another failed distraction that tries to question the validity of evolution. Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism in disguise (see the textbook “Of Pandas and People”) and should not be taught as science alongside evolution. It’s the duty of scientists to defend actual science from pseudoscience, and I applaud the actions of the Sam Noble Museum and the university.
Jordan Stone
Zoology senior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
pearljamrun 2 years, 7 months ago
As a mathematics major, I just want to defend my field.
ID theorists use combinatorics to show that it is extremely improbable that amino acids randomly came together to form functional DNA.
Please respect this as evidence for their views.
A side note - I am curious if you have read Richard Dawkins's disparagement of punctuated equilibrium in The Blind Watchmaker.
I do not mean to insinuate that Dawkins is the source of authority on this subject.