<p>Kikuchiyo,</p>
<p>I see what you mean. In that case, yeah, he can go nuts.</p>
<p>However, it's clear that he may not lecture the matter in the class.</p>
<p>yet evolution gave us external testies so that the tempature will be regulated to an optimum level of growing sperm. you can explain just about all body functions with evolution and most have some sort of use. the only thing that is currently byond us is gray matter, which we are slowly figureing out.</p>
<p>Oh, of course I know WHY evolution led to that. However, it makes no sense why God would use a workaround solution.</p>
<p>oh of course if god did it, it would have been more sensible to put in an air conditioning unit</p>
<p>For all its flaws, the human body is still REMARKABLY perfect. Too perfect. I'm not very religious, but evolution cannot be the only explanation for the huge intelligence gap between human beings and other life. And it's not just intelligence, it's sense of humor and logic and capacity to create new ideas and see beyond the immediate. As much as I'm interested in evolution, I do think that there's something beyond this world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For all its flaws, the human body is still REMARKABLY perfect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No it's not, it's a horrific flawed mess. Everything from our knees to our teeth have serious problems. Even our method of locomotion is crap.</p>
<p>"For all its flaws, the human body is still REMARKABLY perfect."</p>
<p>Nope. The human body is far from perfect. Entropy knocks it down.</p>
<p>It is curious however, that for all our flaws, for all the species that are better than us in something, we are still able to become the dominant species on this planet using our intellect and our logic, something that no other species has come close to match.</p>
<p>You obviously haven't had a loving pet. You'd be surprised how smart all the "dumb animals" can be.</p>
<p>yllwjep,</p>
<p>Sure, we have become the dominant species. That doesn't mean we're here for any particular reason, however.</p>
<p>if were here for any perticular reason it would be to cause a mass extinction. some sciencetists think we are in the greatest mass extinction ever. (excuse my spelling)</p>
<p>That would imply outside planning, which is unprovable.</p>
<p>"UCLAri: When Chemeng1 said "So, let them explore, see what they find. It isn't like we should be afraid that they'll come up with a scientifically backed theory on how God said poof, and there we were, lol!!," I'm pretty sure that he meant the creation science community, not a professor and his law class taking field trips to science labs trying to prove evolution false. Two lines down, Chemeng even said "Like was said, this is a Law professor, not even in the Science dept. So, who cares? "</p>
<p>Anyway, it doesn't matter what Chemeng said, it matters what the Supreme Court said in Edwards v. Aguillard, which I was responding to. It in no way forbids a professor from writing a book on his beliefs. I don't think they will any time soon either, thanks to the First Amendment."</p>
<p>Thanks for clearning that up, Kikuchiyo. And, fwiw, well put. </p>
<p>-A</p>
<p>While imperfect, gotta admit the human body is one damn fine piece of art. The senses alone are remarkable. And of course intelligence. Obviously, intelligence provided our ancestors with a survival advantage, with the ability to create tools, formulate plans, and coordinate with other individuals. Primitive intelligence advanced to today's intelligence as members of our species found the smarter ones more attractive (in addition to them prospering better).</p>
<p>Supposed Berkeley-basher or no, they bring up an excellent point. I didn't know about that prof, and the news is very disturbing. </p>
<p>Maybe humanity just isn't meant to succeed for very much longer, as evinced by the election. It's all downhill from here...</p>
<p>" Primitive intelligence advanced to today's intelligence as members of our species found the smarter ones more attractive"</p>
<p>Not true I dont think we have evolved to that level ,people are attracted to the security that being smart occasionally provides and to physical body ie breast and such</p>
<p>"Supposed Berkeley-basher or no, they bring up an excellent point. I didn't know about that prof, and the news is very disturbing."</p>
<p>Shaaser, I am glad you stand against the crazy professor who attacks the fundamentals of the scientific method. If anything, you have given me hope that not all Berkeley students are so overly rabid about defending their school that they do not know a truly bad apple when they see one. That professor is not just a bad apple. Intellectually speaking, he's rotten to the core.</p>
<p>He's rotten to the core because he's religious and doesn't believe in evolution? Good lord...</p>
<p>The law is a different brand of academia. What's the job of trial lawyers? To pick up a case and argue it as passionately as they possibly can. If anything, this professor has shown that he's good at what he does. I don't agree with him, but I also don't label people because I disagree with their beliefs. As long as he's not teaching Evolution 101, I have no problem.</p>
<p>I said he's rotten to the core INTELLECTUALLY speaking. I never said he was rotten to the core morally or socially or economically or as a person. He's just rotten to the core in terms of academics and intellect. I would be rotten to the core intellectually speaking if I public declared my belief in witchcraft and started to deny the merits of science. How is this Berkeley professor any different?</p>
<p>How can you be economically rotten to the core?</p>