<p>Stop hijacking the thread and talk about the professor's argument, please. This bickering about Gutrade is annoying.</p>
<p>I agree with you anon, and seeing as how there is so much charged emotion on this thread, I will extend the first hand, and go back to the argument about the merits of evolution.</p>
<p>You stated, anonymou5, that it is perplexing that something as complex as the eye could have developed. I disagree. Each part is built upon another part, and the eye didn't just evolve in one step. It could have originated from a few light sensitive cells on the head of an organism that allowed it to tell between up and down, or to even go closer to sourced of light for food. As time went on, more structures were added a little by little, piece by piece, and after billions upon billions of years we have the amazing complexity of the modern eye. SOme people make the argument that the eye is "irreducibly complex' and that if I take even one part out, like the cornea, then the eye would stop to function. They use this as an excuse to explain why the eye could never have evolved on its own, because each part is irreducibly complex. Once again, I must disagree. I know this is an oversimplification, but think of evolution like the construction of an incredibly complex jenga block tower. At every stage of evolution, let's say that you add one jenga block on top of another. Of course, after billions of years and you have this huge, incredibly complex jenga tower, you might think "damn, this this is so huge, so complex, and so crazy looking that I don't think it could have been pieced together one by one. And it's so irreducibly complex. If I pull this one block out over here, the whole thing comes tumbling down. Man, that must have been created by a super alien or something." In reality, however, there is a perfectly logical explanation as to how that jenga tower was constructed, and even though it may fall down if I pull away a single block, I know that it was pieced together after millions and millions of years of painstakingly hard work.</p>
<p><em>applause</em> Wow dude, that was a very well thought out rebuttal. I love the jenga block analogy. If anything, I believe now more than ever that you are indeed going to go to Yale. You are certainly smart enough. I'm sorry you didn't get into Stanford, but to err is human, and the admissions committee obviously made a mistake. I hope you don't have any hard feelings! </p>
<p>Anyway, have a blast in New Haven. Maybe I'll read you up in some book someday.</p>
<p>So a professor is not entitled to his own beliefs if they clash with intellectualism? Albert Einstein believed strongly in God. Does that make him less credible? This is a professor of law. His stance on evolution is irrelevant because he does not teach it. This thread is being kept alive by Berkeley rejects who think an individual can represent one of the biggest universities in the world. You don't see any of them losing respect for Harvard because one person there made a sexist remark.</p>
<p>Yeah i have to agree with Gurtrude on this one, the eye evolved when an area of light sensitive cells formed a cup. Eventually the cup started to curve inward intill there was just 1 hole in the ball. Then they think a liquid filled sack in which the organism could fill with water to focus then evolved so the organism could focus the light. Some wonder how come it seems so perfect, the best answer is trial and error (natural Selection).</p>
<p>Berkeley 09</p>
<p>No. You agree with Darwin, not Gutrade.</p>
<p>"This thread is being kept alive by Berkeley rejects..."</p>
<p>Wow, that's really mature. This thread is trying to examine anti-intellectualism and the covergence of church and state at a public university that recieves public funding. It is a very relevent topic of interest, and I think many prospective freshmen might want to know about things like this when they choose a school. For example, religiously devout people who might have thought that Berkeley was hostile to religious beliefs might be comforted to know that Berkeley has creationist professors who refuse to believe in the merits of evolution. on the other hand, liberally minded students who are interested in scientific investigation might think twice about a place where professors attack the scientific method. Other than the rabid Berkeley supporters who attack the people who write in this thread, I find this discussion to be very enlightening. I am learning more about the growing divide between creationists and intellectuals, and how prevalent it is not only in the deep south, but also in the Bay Area as well.</p>
<p>Rooster, we both know that the Cal staff is overwealmingly liberal, as is most major university, so you can stop the "liberals wont want to attend Cal" business. I've already stated my oppinion that Creationism is absurd, but I also trust graduate students in their mid 20's who are studying at Boalt to able to form their own oppinions on the matter. Don't forget that the Free Speach Movement began at Cal. Free speach is still valued highly at Cal, as those that have ever walked down Sproul Plaza at noon can attest. Its easy to defend free speach when you believe in what is being said, but the true test is to defend it when you disagree.</p>
<p>There's a difference between defending free speech and teaching very wrong ideas to kids. I find it funny that you equate the two. WHy else do you think there is such an uproar in Asia about Japan's callous decision to gloss over their horrendous WWII war crimes in their student textbooks? </p>
<p>I do indeed believe in free speech. If the KKK wants to talk about killing all people of color, then they can talk about whatever the hell they want. Now if they want to teach that crap in the schools, not only would I be firmly against that, but I'll even seek asylum in another country and save my own neck. The same goes for creationism. If people want to believe in irrational things, well, then all the power to them. But if they want to teach it in the schools and parade it as intelligent design, then that's when I have a problem with it.</p>
<p>Kids? I think the "kids" at Boalt Law school might take offense to being called a kid by an undergraduate. This guy is teaching law, how often is creationism really going to come up anyway? I also think that there needs to be oposition to certain ideas so that those ideas can be defended and made stronger. I agree wholeheartedly that this should not be taught in any public (or private for that matter) elementary or highschools where kids are just learning to form thier oppinions on matters such as this, but this graduate school and these people have undoubtedly already formed thier opinions on this subject.</p>
<p>Drawing comparisons between the diplomatic row over Japanese textbooks that treat the Rape of Nanking as a footnote in history and this case is ridiculous. At this point in time, no evidence suggests that the professor has forced his beliefs on the students while teaching law; the professor just happens to be also involved in a creationist movement in his spare time. Surely he is more public about his beliefs than others but that does not automatically mean that he should be forced to resign from his position as long as he has kept this out of the classroom.</p>
<p>There is very little tolerance of beliefs different from the mainstream thinking and that I find disconcerting. His beliefs may be "hooey," but that does not automatically condemnation.</p>
<p>I agree that Japan's glossing over the Rape of Nanking is of a magnitude far greater than this subject we are discussing. It's absolutely evil. But by using that example, I did not try to imply that what the Japanese are doing is any less abhorrent than it is. It was just an example of how dangerous and malicious it is to corrupt the minds of youth. Although what the Japanese are doing is far worse, having an opportunity to discuss the absolute injustice of what is happening over there is probably a good thing.</p>
<p>Rooster. Diplomacy and discussion of theories are two completely different things. </p>
<p>Not all departments are one and the same at Berkeley. Yes, its possible to be ranked number one in Sociology, Political Science, as well as Chemistry and Engineering. Remember this phenomenom isn't possible at any other school. No one is jumping 10 steps ahead and advocating the teaching of creationism for all schools. </p>
<p>Someone might even come out and say that macro-evolution is so statistically impossible that God probably made macro-evolution possible. Do I agree with that view? Who knows? Is it a theory? Yes it is. </p>
<p>What you are essentially doing Rooster is trying to mix the laws and conduct of diplomatic issues of Japan's war atrocities with the right of creationists to teach their platform in schools. A history based on lies and misdeeds will make a nation's psyche crumble and discredible later on in life. It will also serve to discredit the government and cultural authenticity of the people who propagate it. </p>
<p>Now what does debate essentially do? It helps both side come up with more research and valid points to address each other's viewpoints. Will there ever be an answer? Who knows. Will this debate help lead to a further preponderance of issues and research on both side to help find the truth? Yes it does. And that is the trademark of Berkeley, which is respected as the number one bastion of forefront intellectual thinking and research in the entire world.</p>
<p>Gutrade, very good. I agree that that is probably what happened. I'm sure that question wasn't brought up uselessly, perhaps it happened within a very short period of time.</p>
<p>West Sidee: "Someone might even come out and say that macro-evolution is so statistically impossible that God probably made macro-evolution possible. Do I agree with that view? Who knows? Is it a theory? Yes it is."</p>
<p>This is the point of Intelligent Design. IT IS NOT CREATIONISM. It is bringing up valid questions about evolution. Another question: how did DNA appear, and more importantly, how did the process of DNA replication appear at the same time? (Or perhaps RNA, and RNA replication?) This process requires nucleotides, and many proteins which facilitate each step.</p>
<p>I am not saying that I don't believe in evolution, I am just trying to help those who are quick to dismiss recognize the validity of the questions being brought up.</p>
<p>(I wanted to go to Stanford too :/ )</p>
<p>Maybe dna, rna and rna replication came from Adam's rib.(:</p>
<p>.............</p>
<p>Anything that is properly deduced from proven facts can be accepted as undeniable truths of science. Certain tenets of evolution remain unproven. Therein lies the doubt. The process of questioning theories is part of science. Dismissing it as "UNEDUCATED!" "BLASHPHEMY!" "THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS UNDER ATTACK!" is just ignorant.</p>
<p>Questions such as how a cell arose against such remarkable odds, and how the Big Bang was triggerred show that the existence of God has not been disproven. Religion and science can coexist peacefully. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Religion and science can coexist peacefully.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only in its highest form at Cal. Any lesser forms of the two may co-exist elsewhere, but in both of their highest compatible forms (which each by itself will exceed those at any other university), only at Berkeley.</p>
<p>I agree that religion and science can exist peacefully, but there needs to a separation of the two. I don't expect scientists to go into a church and question the existence of God, use carbon dating to refute the Bible, or quote Newton's Laws to explain why Moses could not have parted the Red Sea. That would be be totally wrong, and maybe even bigoted. </p>
<p>So then why should religious people try to go into a school and try to change the biology cirriculum? If you expect science to stay out of religion's way, then I'd expect religion to stay out of science's way. Intelligent design is not scientific at all, and here's why. Intelligent Design, at its very core, is based upon faith in something that has not been empirically observed. If you find holes in the theory of evolution, and so far as I can tell there are no substantial holes that cannot be explained if you did further research into the matter, then you cannot automatically say, "oh dear, this doesn't add up so there must be a God that did this." Jumping to the conclusion that a God has created something, without first empirically observing that God, is a completely unscientific endeavor that is contrary to the spirit of the enlightenment and the scientific method. In fact, anonymou5, although you were being sarcastic when you said, "UNEDUCATED!" "BLASHPHEMY!" "THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS UNDER ATTACK!," you were actually dead on. Intelligent Design is religion's attempt to get its foot into the door of science and interfere with the scientific method. Since our country is founded upon the separation of church and state, this is a completely unacceptable endeavor. It cannot, should not, and must not be done if we want to preserve the founding principles of this country and to protect the ideals of the enlightenment that we have come so far to establish. I know there is always the recurrent theme of irrationality in the midst of modernity, but sometimes things can go too far. </p>
<p>Now as for the existence of DNA and RNA. Well, RNA actually existed before DNA, and scientists have replicated the conditions in which RNA can form. There have been experiment where scientists took a soup of inorganic matter, put an electric current through it, and basically recreated the very conditions that occured in the primordial earth. What they found was that organic material would arise, including urea and several types of amino acids. They also found that simple strands of RNA could form, and if given a clay template, could replicate under the right conditions. Also, if you have taken physics classes, you would know that entropy (complexity of molecules) can increase when there is an outside source of energy. Given that we have the sun's energy output constantly radiating on the earth's surface, I find it mathematically possible for complex structures to arise from simpler ones. Therefore, the existence of RNA, DNA, and life itself is not as far fetched as one might think. Also, considering that the Universe is so incredibly and mind bogglingly vast, I would think it is statistically impossible if life were to not exist. There are so many conidtions that are possible, and in all likelihood, we are not the only lifeforms in this universe. </p>
<p>Anyway, I hope this example helps you guys to know that when you don't understand something, it might be best to look into the subject further rather than coming to an irrational conclusion. Part of the reason why intelligent design fails is because they argue about topics that they think are unexplainable, but if they only bothered to dig a little further, they would find out that stuff like "irreducible complexity" and "existence of DNA" are entirely proveable within the realm of science. </p>
<p>P.S. Thanks rooster08 for your kind compliments. Don't worry, I don't have any hard feelings towards Stanford. They were my number one choice, and I envy you, but I'm sure Yale will be a fun place as well. Anyway, there's always grad school!</p>
<p>Thank you oh wise one. What courses are you teaching next semester?</p>