Dawkins' web site is the one who made the inference that some/most/all (take your pick) inane posts are the result of students taking the course, which is highly unlikely (given the size of the University and the class size). He then used that to make the argument that we have one more reason to ignore / discount / ridicule posts coming from ID supporters because they're just trying to complete certain course requirements. Then Slashdot picked up the story and ran with it as though we should all be morally outraged at such a thing.

I'll agree that the comment link you posted is inappropriate and, well, pretty dumb--especially if you are trying to convince someone of your position. But I'd encourage you to take a look at the comments on the Dawkins site that are attached to the article. Most of them are a complete dismissal of ID supporters, along with some name calling: "IDiots," "Cretinsts," etc. That's not going to further your cause either.

This whole story is ridiculous tripe. Consider the source: the article comes from Richard Dawkins' web site; hardy an unbiased source on this particular topic. So what we have here is a story from one side of the argument complaining about a course at a university whose topic is APOLOGETICS. When studying apologetics, you learn how to defend a particular position (see definition two at dictionary.com here). What better exercise for learning a skill like that than to go out there and defend a particular position publicly? Certainly ID gets attacked enough by Darwinists (many of them ad hominem or straw man attacks--examples of which can be found in posts above this one) that people shouldn't get too upset when ID proponents start defending their position.

Why assume the students are going out there and randomly "making posts" but not contributing to the discussion? Maybe the professor grades the posts specifically on the quality of the discussion, with the 10 or more posts in a single back-and-forth discussion being worth more than trolling 10 different web sites. Who knows? We don't, and certainly Dawkins doesn't. Either way, it seems that this is a very appropriate exercise when learning something like apologetics. Certainly making blanket judgments and name calling doesn't move this issue forward at all. Nobody's going to be persuaded by a flippant dismissal of their position without giving any reasoning.

We had our child's cord blood banked with CBR (http://www.cordblood.com). We are very happy to not have had to use it, and the ongoing cost ($100/yr) is pretty low.

One thing that helps keep the cost down: you get a free year if you refer somebody else to them. And there are other things they've done that we didn't expect: they send my daughter stuff from time to time (children's books, etc.). So you don't feel like you're throwing your $100 down a hole every year, and I think most of the initial cost has to do with the courier they send to collect the blood after the birth.

On the off chance that something happens and she needs the stem cells, it's nice to know we have them stored. Yes, the chance is small (thankfully), but who knows where the research will take us?

I'm reminded of that picture of a rat with a human ear on its back from a year or so ago. Accidents happen. You do what you can as a parent to provide for your children as best as you can. I'm happy to pay $100 bucks a year to give my daughter a chance that I didn't get--even if it's a long shot. And if you live in the US, you get way more than that back in taxes per child, so to me, it's not much of a sacrifice.

It's coming.

See http://www.liferay.com/web/guest/products/social_office.

Full disclosure: I work for Liferay, Inc.