Responding to a particularly egregious column
in last Monday's student paper, Rachel Robson wrote this response (which I don't think got published):
If Dustin Elliott's error-ridden and fallaciously-argued November 7 column ("Design debate: Darwin dar-loses") is indicative of the training in biochemistry he has received here at KU, he should ask for his money back.Sean Whittier and I took a more lengthy tack
It is disheartening that a biochemistry major and future scientist would accept Intelligent Design uncritically, and that any student could write a column as riddled with errors of both fact and logic as Dustin Elliott’s.
While that essay confuses and misrepresents contemporary scientific fact and theory, the central flaw in his column is its misunderstanding of the very nature of science.
Science is a process, not an encyclopedia. Science proceeds by asking questions and testing hypotheses. The utility of science derives from this pragmatic approach; untestable hypotheses are either too general or too poorly specified to predict anything.
It goes on from there.