Letters to the editorSept. 27, 2007
Evidence clear for evolution
After the Sept. 25 issue of the Lariat, which was flooded with letters bashing evolution, I thought it was time to weigh in.
I scanned the names after the letters, and every single anti-evolutionist was either a philosophy major, a political science major, a religion major or some combination thereof.
Not one single science major offered an opinion.
So, as a student who has actually studied evolution and as a devout Roman Catholic, I can affirm that there is in fact such a thing as evolution.
I offer to you this example: There is a particular type of spiked fish that has these large dorsal spines to protect it from birds.
These spines have the disadvantage of being very easily exploited by parasitic fish. If we examine the fish from a lake with no birds but many parasitic fish, you will see very reduced spines. If the opposite is true, you see large spines. This is what biologists call a kern. This is also what I would call evolution. Granted this is microevolution and the debate is largely over macroevolution, but that's not the point.
The point is people are saying, "Nope, there can be no such thing as evolution because the Bible says so." As a man of faith, I find that troubling.
Isn't it a far greater blasphemy to say that my God, the God of the entire universe, the almighty and the all-powerful can't have created a system by which his creations could evolve and improve? That's putting God into a box. It's no different than our friends in the 18th century who refused to believe God would create an Earth that was not the center of the universe.
The creator of this beautiful amazing world of ours had to have a plan for the future, for his beloved creations to grow and adapt so that they, and ultimately we, may survive.
In closing, let me say this to all of the political science, religion and philosophy majors who have feelings on this topic: Evolution is science.
Take BIO 1306 and then form your opinions.
Religion has had its chance
Re: "Bible proven scientifically" letter to the editor:
Jesus H. on a crutch. "Let's hear another point of view for once"? How about this: For once, Christians and Muslims, let someone else talk. Take your mind off beating Galileo and focus on this: You had your chance for almost two millenia, now it is someone else's turn.
I don't think religions should be silenced while evidence for evolution is gathered, but all the moaning about repression from one of the most powerful voting blocks in the country by playing the victim chord has been a fugue of repression.
Re: "Science just another religion,"
I think it was Loverboy that once crooned, "Science is not a religion." I'm sure there are more academic definitions, but science is the verification of statements through tangible evidence.
How are religions different? Religions make a number of claims about the world and often support those claims with a holy text or oral tradition. But if every claim of Christianity is verifiable by tangible evidence, then why would you need faith?
Assume that science is a religion just like Christianity or Islam. A new kid rolls into town that has verifiable claims about the world. The smart pick out of those three is obviously science. Do religious people really want to contend with that?
Christians' highest point in the battle for believers is on the hill of faith. To passively allow science to equal religion because one doesn't think science can hold water is to make a mole hill out of a mountain -- one that will dwarf religion.
Graduate student, Law
Baylor University Waco, Texas 76798 1-800-BAYLOR-U