My letter to NBC

To the Editors at NBC News:

Your recent article, "Science Advisors Give Fresh Boost To Evolution," about the National Academy of Science's release of Science, Evolution, and Creationism, did a tragic disservice to the people NBC is supposed to be informing. Your show presented Intelligent Design as if it had scientific merit or validity while downplaying the overwhelming evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

Yet a review of actual scientific literature shows that there is no such thing as a "theory of intelligent design"; there is no scientific basis on which to hypothesize about intelligent design; and there are no industrial, medical or agricultural research programs underway that use the various premises promoted as part of intelligent design. One would think that if intelligent design was a valid means of understanding our world that it would be economically useful, but all meaningful research conducted in the life sciences use evolutionary biology as their premise.

Meanwhile, our nation continues to fall further and further behind in cutting edge research into the biological sciences. Creationists have fought for decades to keep evolutionary biology out of the classroom. As a result, our students do not learn about the very fundamentals of biology, and few students reach the university prepared to enter the biological sciences. The most impressive biological research being done today is occurring in countries such as Scotland, North Korea, and Japan-- all countries where evolution is taught from the very beginning without controversy.

"Science Advisors Give Fresh Boost To Evolution" was what has become a meritless standard of reportage: "there are two sides, let's present them as if they had equal merit." There are not two equal sides to this debate: there is biological evolution, the foundation of all understanding in the sciences that keep us alive and keep us fed, and there is a small, disgruntled cadre of religious believers who dislike the implications of that understanding. That NBC should present this as a disagreement between equally valid worldviews contributes to popular impressions that cripple our education system and doom our economy.

Sincerely distressed,

E. M. Sternberg

[Sent "To The Science Editor," TechNews@msnbc.com]

(no subject)

It was quite the weekend here at the Villa. At first, it looked as if Omaha and I might be able to wrangle an overnight for both of the kids, giving the two of us the room we needed. Sadly, it was not to be; Kouryou-chan came down with a terrible cold, and we were not going to let her cross-infect her friends, or run around in the cold and wet getting sicker.

On the other hand, this being Kouryou-chan, she continued to show through all the disease an irrepressible amount of energy that allowed her to participate in the conversation at a delicious dinner of beef stroganoff.

Oddly, the conversation was about Iowa, and what had happened there, and what was about to happen in New Hampshire. Kouryou-chan said, "George Bush is evil!" (I'm not sure where she got that idea) and Omaha and I paused to ask her why she thought that. She didn't know. I had to explain that I thought that he (and some of the candidates) had different varieties of evil, most of which flowed from (perhaps unacknowledged, perhaps not) personal principles which always put their personal power, their self-aggrandizement, over any actual considerations.

We tried, and the girls fully participated, in figuring out why this happens. I tried to explain that, as a (pre-Kristol) conservative, I believed that power did corrupt. That there is a belief that a good man, put into power, will do good things and resist the temptations, and that I don't believe that. There must be checks and balances, and that the last few presidents (Clinton was pretty guilty of this too; oddly, it was Gore who kept some of his worst impulses in check) had started to argue that the law didn't apply to them, because they had to know and do things that, while technically illegal, were necessary. (This is hard to get across to an eight-year-old, but Kouryou-chan is the wiser of the two; together, they got different parts of the conversation.) Omaha tried to communicate why we had strong hope for people like Edwards and Obama, and the girls watched us have a polite exchange of views over Ron Paul.

I like the fact that my girls are fully conscious at just the right age and just the right time to watch the election go by. I have to wonder how many other families have conversations like this.

I also have real terror when I read that 31% of Americans cannot name their vice president, and 64% cannot name the president of Russia. Jeez, I can name the PMs or Presidents of England, Germany, France (but not Spain), Russia, China, Japan, North Korea, (but not South Korea), Burma, Pakistan (but not India... huh), Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, The United States, Mexico (but not Canada), Cuba, Venezuela (but no other South American nation), Kenya and Zimbabwe (but no other Africa nation) off the top of my head.