Bachmann is an Ignoramous--Part MCCXVIII

An astute political observer recently noted that Repub-
lican disdain for learning has gotten so bad that nowadays one is required to have an IQ in single digits to qualify for the party's nomination.

To prove the point, Michele Bachmann, in a question-and-answer session during an education forum at the University of Northern Iowa November 30, said that Intelligent Design Creationism should be taught in schools. She suggested that it is an equally valid scientific theory as evolution, and referred to several "problems" with evolutionary theory--problems that Creationists frequently raise, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, irreducible complexity, and the "dearth of the fossil record" (whatever that means; my house is full of fossils, and I think the American Museum of Natural History has some more)--and which have been refuted over and over again. To teach only science in science class, Bachmann feels, amounts to "government censorship."

Bachmann could scarcely be more wrong. Intelligent Design Creationism has no place in science class, because it is not science. It is not an equally valid alternative theory, because there is no "theory" in it. It is no more than the Abrahamic religious creation myth.

But the most mind-numbing foolish thing that Bachmann said on this issue was "So I think intellectually, the best thing to do is to allow all scientific facts on the table and let students decide." If that were done, putting all scientific facts on the table, why, one would simply have a lesson in evolution, because Creationism is fact-free; it is non-science. However, Bachmann obviously means present religious and supernatural claims as if they were scientific facts. And then, leave it to the students, who are just being introduced to the material and have not yet acquired sufficient knowledge and understanding to adequately judge the matter, to...judge the matter. Ms. Bachmann--if the students have the capability to judge such things, why are they in the class?

Remember the runup to the 2008 election, when Republican contenders were asked to raise their hands if they thought Creationism should be taught? That's right, boys and girls, show us that you don't need no stinkin' education. Rick Perry already claimed (falsely) that Texas schools teach both evolution and Creationism, and he, too, suggested that the students could decide which view they prefer. Yes, I think there may be something to the rumor of that single-digit IQ prerequisite.

Darwin returns to Dover

Charles Darwin came back to haunt Dover, Pennsylvania, in the form of a billboard proclaiming "Praise Darwin: Evolve Beyond Belief." The billboard was prepared in time for the bicentennial anniversary of his birth, February 12, at a site of significance in the history of ideas. The Freedom from Religion Foundation paid for this billboard and a second one in Dayton, Tennessee. Both sites are known for trials arising from anti-evolutionists wishing to teach Creationism in public schools as the explanation for biodiversity. In Dayton, John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution, a prohibited act. In Kitzmiller &al. v. Dover &al. (the trial was actually held in Harrisburg) the Dover Area School District was found in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Article 1 section 3).

Some reactions to the billboard were reported by one of the local papers that followed the story leading up to the 2005 judgement. Steven Neubauer, an outspoken local atheist, said the billboard celebrates science and is not an attack on religious beliefs. Tammy Kitzmiller, the lead plaintiff in the case, said she likes the billboard but figures it will stir up matters that ought to rest. William "Deer-in-the-Headlights" Buckingham, a former school board member who was one of the perpetrators of the Dover Affair, feels the billboard is an expression of free speech, which is allowed to everyone except Christians. Apparently, he is one of many who remains confused about what is meant by "free speech." Similarly, local pastor Sterling Walsh Jr. said the billboard merely reflects one of many viewpoints about the beginning of the world, not realizing that Darwin's theory of evolution did not address the origin of the world, or even the origin of life.

Larry Hicks' column in the paper the next day took the point of view that the billboard represented the gloating of winners in a clash of atheists versus Christians, blaming extremists on both sides for perpetuating the Creationism controversy. He claims "the Christians" who lost Kitzmiller v. Dover have "begrudgingly accepted thair loss," have "been mostly quiet since," and have "licked their wounds and moved on." Mr. Hicks is unaware of the extent and depth of the issue, as was clearly pointed out by Dan Gilbert in an Op-Ed piece two days later. Mr. Gilbert gets it. Judging by the comments posted in response to these articles in the York Dispatch, many people still do not. Our society still fails to educate very well. Can we make a special effort this year, Darwin's 200th birthday, the 150th anniversary of the publication of his The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and the International Year of Planet Earth, to promote a rational, scientific understanding of the world around us?

Biomechanics

The world inside living cells is very mechanical--Michael Behe and other proponentsists of Intelligent Cdesign have told us so. Cells contain factories; I guess they are where the cells build motors.

The most common cellular motor is the Teeny-weeny Evinrude (Evinrudus microcephalicus), but this is by no means the only motor. A while back I posted a note about an itty-bitty Yamaha, an irreducibly complex machine whose complexity was reduced by its lack of an axle.

Those two cellular motors are just fine for operation in watery environments, but in dry territories motors need a means of taking up a load gradually, otherwise they will stall out. That's why we design automobiles with clutches (those with automatic transmissions utilize a fluid coupling which accomplishes the same result).

And so it is that the researchers of Intelligent Design will surely wet their pants when they hear about the wee clutches that are used to disengage the flagella in the soil bacterium Bacillus subtilis. A report (subscription req'd) by K.M. Bair and others in Science for 20 June 2008 describes how a group at Indiana University (yay!) put some bacterial cells on a real small hydraulic lift, pulled off the drive shaft and transmission, and fiddled with the clutch to see how it works. They found

The bacterial flagellum, powered by a motor that generates 1400 pN-nm of torque, can rotate at a frequency of greater than 100 Hz. EpsE [a gene that was mutated for this study--Mark] disabled this powerful biological motor when associated with a flagellar basal body and, in a manner similar to that of a clutch, disengaged the drive train from the power source.

The illustration at the top of this post is not from Blair &al.'s report. I used this one because it more clearly shows the important elements of a clutch, and the figures in the report just looked like a bunch of coiled ribbons with some colored balls. It's important in explaining Intelligent Design that you have pictures that clearly show the point you wish to make. If I had a properly-equipped garage, I would investigate the effect of installing tuned headers on bacteria.

Speaking of teeny-weeny Evinrudes...

In my last post I noted that PBS reran the Nova broadcast of Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. In it, we heard Judge Jones say "We've seen that," referring to a picture of a bacterial flagellum, similar to one already shown. The flagellum had been introduced as literally an outboard motor. This was not noted as a simile; it was not noted as a metaphor. However, I must say, that many times when I hear someone refer to something as literally something else, they frequently mean "No, not literally--when I say literally I really don't mean that literally."

Anyhow, Michael Behe's contention was that this structure, the bacterial flagellum, is irreducibly complex--that is, take away any single part and the thing doesn't function. That contention was seen to be flawed; part of the structure has quite successfully functioned as a delivery system for plague.

An article in Science for 15 February 2008 by Shou Furuike &al. (subscription required) describes an itty-bitty motor that also lacks a rather important part, yet apparently still functions. In this case it's not an Evinrude, it's a Yamaha, er, the Fo motor of the ATP synthase. And the part it's missing is the axle. The axle-less mutants do indeed rotate. The authors end the article with

Why is there superfluous robustness in the rotary mechanism of F1? Perhaps this began as a clumsy device, and then proceeded to sophistication. If so, ring-shaped AAA+ ATPases may all, in principle, be capable of producing torque, as suggested for helicases.

Expelled? Execrable!

I'm not going to review the anti-science pseudo-documentary film "Expelled."

For one thing, it's getting a bit late, and the film is being shown in fewer and fewer theaters. It opened in 1,052 theaters on 18 April, and on 8 May it was showing in 656 theaters (data from here).

Furthermore, there have been numerous reviews of Expelled, some by people who have actually seen it. Some reviewers managed to see it despite efforts by the producers to keep them away (i.e., expelled). The reviewers all agreed that Expelled is a lousy film from an artistic viewpoint, but, more importantly, it is exceedingly dishonest. It misrepresents science and scientists, it relates a false history, it ignores facts contrary to its premise, and it insults any viewers capable of rational thought. Expelled is the quintessential manifestation of the phrase, "Lying for Jesus." Judge John E. Jones III made a comment in his opinion in the Kitzmiller &al. v. Dover Area School Board &al. (Document 342, Memorandum Opinion, December 20, 2005, p. 137) that perfectly fits Expelled:

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

The purpose of this post, then, is merely to direct anyone who hasn't been there already to visit Expelled Exposed, hosted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Get the facts. Check the sources.

From the Research Labs of Intelligent Design

Okay, I'm a little behind in my reading. So the article I'm about to discuss may stir a memory because it was mentioned (and probably reviewed) a couple years ago. It comes out of, not the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, but from the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute of the Biblical Theological Seminary. I'm referring to IBRI Research Report #56, presented online in 2005: Rumors of Angels: Using ID to Detect Malevolent Spiritual Agents, by Robert C. Newman.

The title evokes Peter L. Berger's A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural. Berger contends that sociological arguments support the notion that "theological thinking" is possible in modern society. His small volume is not, Berger notes, a book about angels. He does suggest that our perception of reality may be improved by a "rediscovery of the supernatural"--and this rediscovery might allow for more meaningful relationships between people. He notes that existentialist ponderings need to be tempered with an occasional laugh.

Newman provides us with plenty of laughs and guffaws in his essay. Here is his abstract, in its entirety:

Most discussions of God's action in nature since about 1900 have ignored angelic activity, perhaps in reaction to White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Here we take another look at the biblical data on angels, and then consider what scientific data might be relevant in light of recent interest in intelligent design.

What does this abstract tell us appears in the paper? Very little, and absolutely nothing of what was concluded.

Angels are real, Newman tells us, and are capable of interacting with the material world. Yet they are immaterial beings. So how do they interact with a material world? No explanation is provided. But we know that angels are real because of the evidence--the Bible tells us so, just as it is evidence that there are such other spiritual beings as seraphim and cherubim. Oh, yes--and demons, too. Newman's research report goes on to tell us what it is that angels do, according to his laboratory research (i.e., reading the Bible). His "research" covers what demons do, as well.

Newman reasonably states that people live and act in a real world, a world that has objective existence. So why can't those "other intelligences" (by which he is not referring to chimpanzees or dolphins) live and act in the same world? How can they be detected? In posing these questions, he takes it for granted that angels exist--to doubt their existence, Newman says makes one a liberal--a modern Sadducee.

After presenting several hoary examples of how detection of design can be difficult, Newman proposes

...angelic activity is not like natural laws, which are operating continuously. Rather, they are more like human actions, which are sporadic. But here we have the additional complication that we cannot see the actors.

Then after admitting that science can, indeed, study unrepeatable events, he says

So the only way to find and study such phenomena would be if they leave traces that are detectable and (preferably) unmistakable.

At this point Newman introduces William Dembski's Explanatory Filter, suggesting that it can be used not only to detect God's designs, but

...such an approach could also be used to recognize an intermediate scale of intelligent design, between that of God and humans.

In other words, angels and demons.

And for examples, he cites the book of Job and offers the suggestion that they perform their actions by "influencing individuals and groups" (somehow) or by "doing genetic manipulation on individual organisms" (somehow).

One of the arguments used against Intelligent Design has been the existence of "designs" that are suboptimal or even injurious to humans and other organisms. These, Newman argues, are examples of malevolent design, springing from the drafting tables of Evil Spirits, or, alternatively, the misinterpreted work of God (and so not really malevolent) or space men (which, for some reason, is "consistent with a biblical theism"). "Designs" which are faulty, yet not injurious (such as the famous panda's thumb) are attributed not to evolution contingent upon existing material, but to design by "benevolent (but finite) spirit beings," namely, angels (Good angels, not bad angels). These designs are contingent upon existing material, but changes are not influenced by mutation and natural selection, only by the limited power and imperfect quality that we know is characteristic of angels. I guess angels don't have access to CAD software like God does.

Newman concludes that he doesn't know much about biology, yet he felt no embarrassment in attributing causes to biological observations and determining that his fantasies might seriously impact how science is done, specifically with respect to including the supernatural in scientific research.

Image from Wellcome Library.

Darwin Day is coming...And a little progress

Don't forget, it's Darwin's Birthday Tuesday, 12 February. Why not make a weekend out of it?

The progress I'm referring to is to note that there was an item in the York (PA) Daily Record announcing an 'Evolution Shabbat' Friday (better hurry) at Temple Beth Israel in York, Pennsylvania. Speakers are Rabbi Irwin N. Goldenberg on the Jewish perspective, and Leonard Berkowitz on science, creationism, and intelligent design.

Can Intelligent Design researchers say this?

Michael Eisen of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is the co-leader of a project studying comparative genomics of fruit flies. After sequencing the genomes of ten species of fruit flies they followed the evolutionary trail of genes and associated regulatory regions, pathways, and cellular processes in these ten plus two additional species of Drosophila.

This work allowed the researchers to construct a phylogenetic tree showing the relatedness of the dozen species. But it allows much more, and that is summed up by a quote from Eisen; their work

allows you to map where [genetic] changes occur along the tree, and that allows you to study the process of evolution, not just the product.

Now, just for comparison, what research in Intelligent Design Creationism can make a similar claim? What cdesign proponentsists have even agreed that it is appropriate to study the process of Intelligent Design Creationism?


A brief summary of this work appears in the 9 November issue of Science; more than 40 papers published in Nature and other journals deal with various aspects of it.

Don't miss this--Kitzmiller v. Dover on PBS

Okay, Earth Science Week came and went with little notice. But please notice this episode of Nova on PBS--it's a reenactment of the case that the Discovery Institute was eager to see come to trial...then awfully anxious to see not come to trial...then dismissive of the case as not important.

The show airs 8:00 PM Tuesday, 13 November (check your local listings). If you can't wait, check out the promo on the PBS Web site, where, besides the preview, you can find related information and discussions.

As former Dover Area School Board member and one of the chief Creationists involved in the shenanigans, Bill Buckingham, said, "This is never gonna go away." That's right, Bill; the trial exposed Intelligent Design for what it is--anti-science Creationist claptrap with the primary purpose of bringing proselytizing religion into the classroom.

Dover HS introduces mandatory ID badges

After weeks of discussion, the Dover (Penna.) Area School Board voted 8-1 to approve the high school student handbook, which includes a policy mandating ID badges for students, according to the York Dispatch.

Okay, the policy does not call for students to wear buttons that say "I'm a Creationist!" or "Intelligent Design is for me!" Dover High School has had some interruptions in the past year and there is very real concern for the safety of students. It's no laughing matter.

Thankfully, the Dispatch article did not quote anyone declaring (Pat Robertson-like) that, by embracing the teaching of evolution in science class, the township had rejected God and will be bringing indiscriminate divine wrath upon its children just like Columbine and Waco (well, maybe not like Waco).

But there is an evolution connection.

The lone dissenting vote came from Heather (I-Don't-Know-
What-Intelligent-Design-Is,-But-If-It-Means-Getting-Jesus-
Back-Into-The-Classroom,-I'm-All-For-It) Geesey. Geesey is the only one of the pro-ID board members who was not voted out of office in the November 2005 election (her position was not up for re-election).

Geesey had to remind folks why she is considered a dimwit:

Geesey said that some "religious" people in the community will also take issue with their children wearing a badge that contains a barcode, due to the Biblical reference of "the mark of the beast."

This won't affect her, she said, because she sends her children to cyber school when they reach high school age.

So it comes as no surprise that Geesey did not win enough votes in the primary election in May to appear on the ballot in the November election. Hey, maybe she can run as Sam Brownback's running mate in '08.

Supernatural not religious?

The York Daily Record/Sunday News carried another opinion piece on 20 May 2007 by Richard Cleary, a retired alleged science teacher and devotee of Intelligent Design Creationism. He's still whining about Judge John E. Jones III's decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which ID was dealt a mortal blow. He seems to be conceding that ID is supernatural, but saying that doesn't make it religious. He does not bother to define "supernatural" or "religious" in his piece, but obfuscation and fogginess are stanard operating procedures for Intelligent Design Creationists.

Cleary makes a series of arguments, all erroneous, misleading, or merely straw men. His favorite seems to be that the Intelligent Designer may be supernatural, meaning outside of this universe. He claims that's no more religious than the concept of multiverses, so maybe the Intelligent Designer lives in one of those parallel universes. Codswallop--that's no better than claiming said Designer lives in France. I suppose he would have to suggest there's a different Intelligent Designer in each universe, responsible for designing one of the others. In other words, it's turtles all the way down.

Cleary disingenuously claims

But sometimes we hear that ID is a religious belief because its advocates are frequently Christians. But if the metaphysical commitments of a theory's advocates are all that are necessary to make a theory religious, why is the naturalistic Darwinian view not considered to be an atheistic belief since many of its advocates are certainly atheists? Furthermore, if the naturalistic view is indeed an atheistic hypothesis, why is it permitted to be taught in our schools?

The old "if playing baseball is a sport, not playing baseball is another sport" contention. We teach science in school; evolution is science, a very important science, so we teach evolution. What is so hard to understand here? And what about the fact that many evolution scientists are not atheists?

Further foolishness:

But what is meant by saying that the designer can't be detected? Does it mean that we just can't see the designer and thus have no direct evidence that there is one? Or does it mean that the designer is in principle undetectable?

If it means the former, we should point out that there are dozens of entities scientists postulate which cannot be directly observed - quarks, neutrinos and dark matter, for example - but they can be studied and their existence inferred from their effects.

Likewise, there is abundant evidence of design in our world from which we can infer the existence of a designer. It may be that we can't study the designer directly right now because our technology doesn't allow it, but that doesn't mean that we'll never be able to study it.

How silly! What a child! Of course we study things we cannot see; we have special instruments to detect them and measure their properties. What instruments do we have for detecting Intelligent Design? What do we measure, and in what units? Measuring properties of quarks is not the same as seeing unicorns in the clouds, or concluding that, because humans design and manufacture (oops, sorry, I realize the ID folkses can't deal with the manufacturing aspect) pocket watches and Mini Coopers, anything more complex than a piece of chalk must therefore also be designed. We've seen that Dembski's Explanatory Filter is useless; what, then, Mr. Cleary, is the evidence indicating Design that you claim is so abundant ?

Cleary winds up his opinion with the claim that it is "[o]nly those who don't understand ID or who choose to misrepresent it, two groups which include almost all of its opponents, some of its advocates, and Judge Jones, do that [identify The Designer with God of the Bible]." He needs to listen to his leaders; the grand poobahs of ID have themselves identified The Designer as God and revealed their religious agenda:

Phillip Johnson, who reanimated ID in 1991: “[T]he materialist story thrives only as long as it does not confront the biblical story directly. In a direct conflict, where the public perceives the issues clearly, the biblical story will eventually prevail” [The Wedge of Truth, 1991].

William Dembski wrote in the July/August 1999 Touchstone Magazine: “Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

UPDATE: My letter to the editor responding to Cleary's nonsense was published Saturday, 2 June. Another LTE critical of Cleary's article, was published the day before. That letter concluded, And as long as its proponents base their arguments on biblical references, ID is religious.

Creationists' obsession with Nazis

Red State Rabble has an excellent post about how the Discovery Institute has failed in its efforts to bring anti-science into the public school science classroom; how the media have become wise to the fact that Creationism (even if it's called "Intelligent Design") is not a valid scientific endeavor, on equal footing with evolution science; and how, in their decline, the Discovery Institute now resorts to merely trying to paint evolution and Charles Darwin with color from the Pot of Evil.

In their contempt for honesty (see, for example, Ed Brayton's discussion of DI fanboy and William Dembski's lickspittle Salvador Cordova at Dispatches from the Culture Wars), the Creationists often link evolution and Charles Darwin with Nazism. RSR mentioned in his post that the topic was raised by a Creationist at a Kansas hearing on proposed new science standards in 2005, and went on to follow the theme as it was repeated recently at Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., in speeches given by Discovery Institute Fellow John West. West's speech followed a presentation of dominionist D. James Kennedy's film, Darwin's Deadly Legacy, in which the lie was nurtured further. Finally, RSR takes the Nazism link to Christian Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdooney, founder of the Chalcedon Foundation, and one of its major financial backers, Howard Ahmanson. RSR recommends Chris Hedges' new book, The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism, which draws somewhat different conclusions regarding who has been emulating the tactics of Nazis than these people whould have you believe.

As usual, the real losers in this are the gullible public who believe those who are "lying for Jesus" (as the expression goes). One of those losers is H. Hoover Yount, who, in a letter to the editor of the York Daily Record May 1 said

...all the "offending board members [of the Dover, PA, school board] wanted to do was request that the science teacher tell the class that there was an alternative view of biology to the Darwinian theory, and it was contained in a book titled "Of Pandas and People," and several copies were available in the school library.

and

Banning books is what the Nazis did. Let's not "ape" them.

This was followed by another letter, by Katie Riley, on May 3. Riley said

With prayer, the Bible, and creation-supporting science removed from government schools, what remains is humanistic indoctrination...

Our government-sanctioned genocide of more than 47 million people towers over Nazi Germany's estimated 21 million.

These two individuals have swallowed the load that evolution=atheism=nazism, because persons claiming to be good Christians told them so.

They didn’t know? Because they did not want to

A little while back some folks were questioning the wisdom of several members of the Dover Area School Board for insisting on adopting a statement to be read to biology students that promoted intelligent design, when they understood neither evolution nor intelligent design (nor even science, for that matter). Apparently, some people thought these ignoramuses should be excused for their lack of knowledge. I disagree. There was opportunity to learn (for crying out loud, there were teachers in the schools); some information was available in the media (although at that time too many reports seemed to attempt more balance than was justified); and some folks tried to tell them intelligent design was bogus.

In early September I sent the following letter to the three Board members who had email addresses listed on the School Board Web page. Those three were Noel Wenrich (who later left the Board for a position elsewhere), Alan Bonsell (I did not realize he was the creationist ringleader), and Heather Geesey. I asked the recipients to share the letter with their colleagues who did not have email addresses posted. Needless to say, my letters had no effect on these people.

Dear (Mr. Wenrich, Mr. Bonsell, and Ms Geesey),

I understand that the Dover Area School Board is considering whether to require “Of Pandas and People” as a supplemental text in the high school biology curriculum. I believe members of the Board should be made aware of the nature of this book and why adopting it would do a grievous disservice to the students. I have attached two critiques of this book written by qualified practitioners in the field of evolutionary biology (more critiques have been written, but they cover much of the same ground). Please share this information with those Board members who do not have email addresses lested on the Board Web page.

In a nutshell, “Intelligent Design Creationism” is a movement having as part of its overall goal, bringing Biblical Creation into the classroom. Although some may deny a religious motivation, when one examines what they say, in their own words, there is no room for doubt. “Pandas” is clearly and undeniably a sectarian religious text, despite its attempts not to refer to “God” or cite passages from the Bible. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined such efforts to introduce religion under stealth violate the Constitution. (I’ll just mention here that, despite Creationists’ execrations to the contrary, many evolutionary scientists are religious people.)

“Pandas” presents many of the standard Creationist arguments and strategies—arguments based on misunderstanding of the science, quotations out of context, distorted explanations, misrepresentations, and even outright falsehoods. If the authors are to be believed, not only is evolutionary science in error, but many aspects of geology and the basic sciences are also wrong. When one considers how well the scientific method has helped us learn about the world around us, it is extreme hubris to say that science has got it all wrong.

I’ll leave specific criticisms of “Pandas” to the attached articles. They contain additional references, and many, many more can be found at www.talkorigins.org, www.talkdesign.org, and other Web sites. Detailed criticisms of Intelligent Design Creationism (and hundreds more references cited) have been presented in

Forrest and Gross, 2004, Creationism’s Trojan horse: Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 401 p.

Pennock, 1999, Tower of Babel: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 429 p.

Pennock (editor), 2001, Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 805 p. [includes contributions by a number of leading ID Creationists, and critiques]

Shanks, 2004, God, the devil, and Darwin: Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 273 p.

My greatest concern in matters such as this is that we are at a point where America needs to have as well-informed, knowledgeable, critically-thinking citizenry as possible in order to compete in an increasingly technological world. We severely hamper our ability to compete if we impose a seventeenth-century mode of thinking on our new generations.

I thank you for your patience, and I will gladly provide such additional materials as I can that you may find helpful.

Respectfully yours,

Oh--Happy Darwin Day!