What's his agenda? I mean, this guy is definitely trying to endoctrinate my class. Why?
Read this: http://http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/22/050822ta_talk_hertzberg
----------------
And then, read this taken from my college website:
It seems plausible that Hendrik Hertzberg, author of the article “Mud” which was featured in The New Yorker in August of 2005, makes Creationism and/or Intelligent Design (or the ridiculousness thereof) his primary claim – and reputes the possibility of these ideas being remotely valid. On page two of Hertzberg’s cynical article, he states (with obvious bias and distrust), “But I.D.—whose central (and easily refuted) talking point is that certain structures of living things are too intricate to have evolved without the intervention of an “intelligent designer” (and You know who You are)—enjoys virtually no scientific support.” Not only does Hertzberg make the claim that the Intelligent Design (I.D.) theory has little to no scientific evidence and is easily refuted, but assumes an audaciously mocking standpoint that makes his prejudice crystal clear. The very next line, for example, says that the I.D. theory is “not even a theory, in the scientific sense, because it is untestable and unsupportable by empiracle evidence.” Hertzberg also calls the I.D. theory a “misguided war against reason” fought in a “last-ditch skirmish.” Unfortunately, Hertzberg continues to harp on the foolishness of Intelligent Design (giving repetitious examples of “embarrassed” men who testify that “intelligent design is not a scientific concept”) yet fails to give any evidence of his own that would illustrate how unsupported the theory of I.D. truly is. Instead, Hertzberg draws upon his apparent previously-understood knowledge of the contesting theory – Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – and declares in the first page of his article: “This view [The Theory of Evolution]…commands solid majorities…and thanks to the overwhelming evidence for its validity, has the near unanimous support of scientists everywhere.” Hertzberg seems to think that his attestation of its legality (without providing evidence) is enough to satisfy the reader. He attempts to expel any lingering considerations the reader may have had concerning I.D., preferring to throw the theory on the chopping block and exultantly parade Darwinian Evolution before its eyes. However, I’ve got a problem with his approach.
Mr. Hertzberg, no matter how voluminous your claims, and no matter how excessive your opinion, I’d like to see the evidence behind the assertion. Which assertion? Both – the primary claim, that of the absurdity of Intelligent Design, and the secondary claim, that of the “overwhelming evidence” in support of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Yes please, overwhelm me, and then perhaps I’ll be more inclined to give ear to your sadly unsupported, mud-slinging lambasting.
----------------
I'd love to hear feedback on this set of essays.
Other than that, my life has been filled with...well, more of the same. I've even been to busy to goof on facebook, or talk on the phone, or hang out with friends. Yesterday, I began my week of college finals. I had one yesterday, one today, and two on Thursday. And then - winter break! I am really looking forward to it.
I can't believe that Christmas is seventeen days away. That's just crazy.
