The Onion has published a satirical article on a robot hazing scandal at MIT.

The robots, experimental prototypes recently devised at MIT's prestigious Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, were participating in an apparent initiation exercise that police say involved butyl alcohol and compressed air.

Don Hopkins writes: Rosalind W. Picard, one of Media Lab's prominent research scientists, is regularly cited as a supporter of intelligent design [wikipedia.org].

The above is a false and defamatory claim.

To the best of my knowledge, the only person who makes this absurd claim is Don Hopkins, AKA SimHacker.

The 2001 call for research, which some 500 scientists joined, has nothing to do with ID, nor is it a 'dissent from Darwinism'.

The 2-sentence 2001 call for research simply reminds us that Darwin himself realized his theory was silent on the origins of life (as we know it), and that further research would be necessary to develop a viable theory to explain how DNA-based self-replicates arose in the first place.

Those two sentences are neither a support of ID nor a 'dissent from Darwinism'.

To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest at best and libelous at worst.

Oh. My. God.

They're at it again.

MIT researchers are once again engaging in the despicable practice of Intelligent Design.

Call in SimHacker Don! We have to discredit this with yet another episode of SimScandal.

Why are you so afraid of answering a simple question?

There you go again, Don, making undemonstrated claims about someone else's mindset.

What is your evidence and reasoning to support your idiosyncratic theory that that I'm tormenting you out of fear?

How do you know I'm not doing it for the sheer amusement of the game?

Or for the sincere purpose of bringing you to a state of enlightenment?

Or perhaps I'm doing it to get snarky revenge for the way you rudely spammed my mailbox a few weeks ago with absurd and ridiculous claims about another person's beliefs.

How can you accurately decide which of these many alternative character models is correct, Don?

As to Picard's beliefs, I suggest that you poll her directly, rather than cavalierly publishing and disseminating absurd and ridiculous claims about other people's beliefs, motivations, or affective states.

As to which theory about the Origin of Life to believe in, I am entirely undecided as to which of the many diverse and competing theories outlined in that article will ultimately survive and become the 'standard model'. Very likely the definitive answer to Darwin's Question will not even come in my lifetime. One thing is for sure, however. I agree with Darwin himself, who admitted that his own theory was silent on the question of how life (as we know it) arose in the first place.

Which is why I believe we need to support the research into plumbing this unanswered question, instead of endlessly haranguing ourselves because we don't yet have a comprehensive model to invest our confidence in.