You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Now THIS is "Intelligent Design"
2005-11-18
A letter to the editor in the San Luis Obispo (CA) paper.
SOME DON'T NEED VACCINE
Recent news about the avian flu virus has raised concerns from main street to the White House. There is the possibility, even likelihood, that the virus will mutate into a form that can more easily infect humans.

As the president pointed out, a vaccine cannot be made until this evolution occurs. This raises the concern that it may be impossible to create enough vaccine fast enough to protect all our citizens. But there is hope.

Gallup polls tell us that up to 45 percent of Americans don't believe in evolution. Since random mutation is the engine of evolution, these same people must believe that the virus cannot mutate. Therefore, there is no need to waste vaccine on folks who believe there is no possible threat to th! emselves -- thus leaving a sufficient supply for the rest of us. Perhaps the president, given his doubts about evolution, may wish to demonstrate his leadership by foregoing vaccination.

This approach has added benefits. Polls also tell us that disbelief in evolution is more pronounced among the less educated, the poor and conservatives. If the anti-evolutionists among these groups were to opt out of vaccination then, through immediate deaths and natural selection, we would reduce poverty, raise educational attainment, and become a more progressive society.

George R Zug
Divis. Amphibians & Reptiles/mrc162
Smithsonian Institution
Posted by:Juth Hupaish6491

#7  Phil_b - never ceases to amaze me - the depth of knowledge expressed here at Rantburg!

Aris! Nice short and to-the-point post!
Posted by: Bobby   2005-11-18 21:22  

#6  There is the possibility, even likelihood, that the virus will mutate into a form that can more easily infect humans.

This assertion is false.

I am continually amazed by the number of biologists and similar who just don't understand the Theory of Natural Selection (commonly called evolution). The writer also confuses 'mutation' with 'adaptation'.

Natural Selection will select organisms that are better suited to their current environment (a process known as adaptation). A virus thats infects birds will become better at infecting birds. It will not become better at infecting people.

Mutations are necessarily random. Therefore one cannot say anything about the 'direction' of a set of mutations prior to those mutations occuring.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-11-18 20:55  

#5  ID argues that certain functions are too complex to be the result of mutations -- it is related to the concept of irreducible complexity.

To refer to the gene swaping in a virus as "evolution" is to equivocate on the word "evolution". Gene swaping does not create any new genes, it swaps existing genes.

This is merely an example of the proposition that being an expert in one field does not mean that you have expertise in another. Nothing something about lizards does not mean that you have any ability to construct an argument. This man has failed in his task, the letter is not even silly; it's just kinda stupid.
Posted by: Slitle Angomp3127   2005-11-18 20:02  

#4  The article doesn't ever refer to "intelligent design", it simply refers to belief and disbelief in evolution. The words "intelligent design" were added by the Rantburg contributor in the title.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-11-18 20:02  

#3  I could be wrong but I think this letter mischaracterizes Intelligent Design. I don't think ID discards mutation, it just discards random mutation, pointing out that the supremely advanced organisms all around were unlikely to be produced by simple chance.

I don't really believe in ID but I think the progressives have dismissed it as Creationism before even really looking at it and this kind of misfire is the result. If the writer understood ID better the same letter could be rewritten slightly to blast it properly.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2005-11-18 17:52  

#2  This approach has added benefits. Polls also tell us that disbelief in evolution is more pronounced among the less educated, the poor and conservatives. If the anti-evolutionists among these groups were to opt out of vaccination then, through immediate deaths and natural selection, we would reduce poverty, raise educational attainment, and become a more progressive society.

Why, thank you, Dr. Mengele!
They didn't call them "National Socialists" for nothing...
Posted by: tu3031   2005-11-18 15:56  

#1  There are a few nagging problems with the last thesis. Namely that progressives have a better likelihood of survival, adaptation and procreation.

To start with, progressives often have several herbivorous habits, such as vegetarianism, having a herd mentality instead of defending themselves individually, and an aversion to conflict that certainly do not contribute to survival, compared to a meat-eating, heavily-armed and aggressive conservative.

These same factors also figure in the ability of progressives to adapt to changing circumstances. Again, by being reliant on the herd, they cannot react and adapt until the group reaches a consensus--and stubbornly cling to this consensus despite overwhelming impetus otherwise.

Lastly, not only do progressives not procreate enough to replenish their ranks, they encourage infanticide as a convenience.

So while they might tend to embrace the theory of evolution more than conservatives, they seem to not understand its concepts very well.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-11-18 15:48  

00:00