Harvard Law School Makes Online Zero-L Course Free for All U.S. Law Schools Due to Coronavirus
For Kennedy School Fellows, Epstein-Linked Donors Present a Moral Dilemma
Tenants Grapple with High Rents and Local Turnover at Asana-Owned Properties
In April, Theft Surged as Cambridge Residents Stayed at Home
The History of Harvard's Commencement, Explained
To the editors:
The problem with the argument to simply ignore Intelligent Design as put forth by Jonathan H. Esensten ’04 is that it assumes that a powerful scientific group (the pro-Darwinian establishment) must be right simply because they agree with each other and ignore their opponents as best they can (Column, “Death to Intelligent Design,” March 31).
Human history shows that insular priesthoods, religious, secular and scientific form again and again to keep outsiders out and keep insiders privileged. This may or may not be the case with Stephen Jay Gould and company. The only way to tell is to honestly and fairly look at the evidence. Science prospers in political systems where the free flow of information and ideas is allowed. Don’t let The Crimson become part of the problem due to a naive view of human history and human nature.
Jonathan R. Witt
March 31, 2003
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.