Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

Re “If Law ‘Is Here to Stay,’ So Are Doubts About It” (news analysis, front page, June 26):

As a nurse practitioner and a professor of nursing at Pace University, I am baffled by those who are so eager to overturn a law that provides health care to millions of people, the Affordable Care Act. Do they think it’s just fine that Americans die routinely of preventable and treatable illnesses because they have no insurance?

Have they ever come face to face with a terrified person who discovered a lump in her breast, started coughing up blood or endured any of an array of frightening symptoms, but who did not have insurance and could only hope and pray that everything would be O.K.? I have, and it is heartbreaking.

The educator in me wonders why the same people who decry public funding for medical care have no problem with publicly funded education. Is health care a privilege, rather than a right, like education, deserved only by those who can afford it?

Common sense dictates that they both are rights. I just don’t get it.

CAROL ROYE

Ossining, N.Y.

The writer is the author of “A Woman’s Right to Know: How Women’s Health Became a Political Pawn 

Note from KBJ: Something can be good in one respect and bad in another respect, or even in many respects. ObamaCare hasn't kicked in yet. I want to hear from Carol Roye five years from now.

Here.

Here.

Here are scenes from today's stage (held in Holland) of the Tour de France. Andre Greipel of Germany won the stage. He averaged 29.60 miles per hour for 103.1 miles. The stage was flat, but the riders had to contend with rain and strong winds, which made it treacherous.

Addendum: Mark Cavendish is a great sprinter, but not much of a human being. Today, realizing that he would not win the stage, he stopped pedaling. This allowed Fabian Cancellara to take third place, which catapulted Cancellara into the yellow jersey. Had Cavendish kept pedaling and finished third, his teammate, Tony Martin, who worked his ass off for Cavendish all day, would have worn the yellow jersey for the first time in his career. I don't know why anyone would want to ride for Cavendish. If you look up "jerk" in a dictionary, you find a picture of Cavendish next to it.

In his famous (some would say infamous) 2002 essay, "Teach the Controversy," Cambridge-trained philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer advocated "teaching the controversy." One thing this might mean is teaching all theories on the matter at hand, and while some people advocate this, Meyer means something different. He means teaching the "scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution." Specifically, he means that "Teachers should teach students about the main scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory."

According to Meyer, there are "over 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles that raise significant challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution." These articles, or some subset of them, can (and in his opinion should) provide the basis of classroom discussion. Meyer quotes Darwin himself as saying that, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

Fast forward to this past May. P. Lynne Honey, a Canadian professor of psychology (one of the soft sciences), published an essay entitled "Why I Teach the Controversy: Using Creationism to Teach Critical Thinking." When I saw the title, I thought immediately of Meyer and assumed that Honey taught her students "about the main scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory."

How wrong I was! Honey has no doubts about the truth of Darwinism. As she puts it, "I won't discuss [in the classroom] the validity of evolutionary theory. . . . That matter is settled, from a scientific perspective if not from the perspective of popular opinion." She adds: "Evolution is a robust and well-supported theory that has undergone rigorous testing, and is a unifying theory in science." And later: "[T]here is no question about the validity of evolution as an explanatory model."

This is all very strange. If Darwinism is so obviously correct, then it should be able to withstand criticism. Shouldn't that criticism be discussed, if only to show students how inadequate it is? Honey seems worried that if doubts are raised about Darwinism, her students will be persuaded by them. God forbid! She doesn't really want to "teach the controversy," as her title suggests. She wants to suppress the controversy. The name for this is "indoctrination."

How did science go from disinterested inquiry to suppression of inquiry? Why are so many scientists (such as Honey) so insecure in what they believe? The losers, of course, are students. Instead of seeing robust defenses of Darwinism by their professors (by which I mean replies to objections), they see evasion, misrepresentation, personal attack, and obfuscation. Darwin would be appalled by the dogmatism of his followers. As Meyer puts it, "The issue is whether students will learn both sides of the real and growing scientific controversy about Darwinism, and whether a 19th century theory will be taught dogmatically to 21st century students."

Teach the controversy! If Darwinism can't survive criticism, it's worthless.

Yesterday evening, with fireworks going off in the neighborhood (which scared our three dogs mightily), Katherine and I watched The Watch (2012), which I picked up on DVD in Kroger for five dollars (maybe it was 10). The movie features Ben Stiller (a personal favorite), Vince Vaughn (meh), Jonah Hill (yuck), and Richard Ayoade (whom I had never heard of or seen). The movie was silly, goofy, vulgar, and fun. I love it when Ben Stiller says, "What?!"

Here is the trailer.

Not a single Atlanta Brave to be seen.

Is it fair to say that the Boston Red Sox have hit rock bottom?

To the Editor:

Judith Shulevitz misstates the affirmative consent standard at issue. No one disputes that “yes means yes” (barring universally agreed upon exceptions, such as the use of force, incapacitation through drugs or alcohol, failure to reach the age of consent). The affirmative consent standard properly stated is that “only yes means yes.” The point is that the absence of “no” does not constitute “yes”; there must be some positive affirmation to confer consent.

We derive no benefit from a discussion of the criminal law’s implementation of the platitude “yes means yes”; that’s already uncontroversially in effect. We need to decide whether the absence of “no” means “yes” (the old implied consent standard—a green light until someone says “stop”), or whether consent must be actively conferred (the newer affirmative consent standard—a red light until someone says “go”).

HARRY BROD

Cedar Falls, Iowa

The writer is a professor of sociology and humanities at the University of Northern Iowa. A DVD of his lecture “Asking for It: The Ethics and Erotics of Sexual Consent” is used by colleges and government agencies.