Columnist needs to learn to use dictionary

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to Leslie Arntz’s view, which was posted Feb. 22. But before I write about that, I would like to mention that I have seen more racist, sexist and religiously biased articles in this paper in the past few months than I have in the past two years I have been reading it. I realize that it is important for people to voice their opinions, but that does not give the right to libel someone based on their religion or sexuality.

Now according to Webster’s Dictionary, religion is 1) A belief in a divine or super human power or principle, usually thought of as the creator of all things. There is also 2) Anything that elicits devotion, zeal, dedication, etc. Now, I’m not sure if Leslie was taught how to use a dictionary, but the little numbers indicate that they are different definitions of one word.Meaning that the way she connected it with evolutionism was correct, but irrelevant to her article. That definition is in regard to any belief while Christianity would fall under the divine belief category.

Also, pornographic images, homosexuality and lawlessness have been around since before recorded history; Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published in 1859. So perhaps the source of these “evil” activities is not in a scientific belief.

The reason evolution should be taught in a science class, and not creationism, is that evolution can be tested. You can not test whether God exists. The fossil record does not show any evidence of God, and neither does the genetic code. Evolution is also the basis of several branching sciences. Zoology, genetics, anything in the biological sciences — all of them are derived from the evolutionary system. You don’t have to believe in evolution, but if you don’t, then you had better start disbelieving those, as well. You can live in ignorance, but don’t try to make everyone else as uneducated as yourselves.

Shawn Szymecki

Sophomore biology major

Don’t blame humanists for social problems

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to Leslie Arntz’s column, “I am biased, but so are you.” I am a humanist, and I was deeply offended by her article.

Leslie outwardly blames humanists for many of the social problems we are “plagued” with today. She may be shocked by this, but most secular humanists hold many of the same moral values as her. The main difference is that humanists respect all people and hope they live their lives to the fullest. A humanist would never disrespect someone and tell them they are immoral because they love someone of the same sex. Maybe humanists are wrong for thinking like this, but I’m pretty sure there’s a part in the Bible about only God being able to judge people. So unless Leslie is God, please stop judging others.

Leslie, you’ve got it all wrong about atheists not wanting Christianity in public schools. If a school wanted to add an optional religion class or even a Christianity class, not many people would have a problem with it. The problem arises when you try to put your religion in a science class. Science and religion have never gotten along, mainly because you can test science through a wonderful, logical manner called the scientific method. Religion, on the other hand, cannot be tested and is only blindly accepted. Anything that can’t be tested by the scientific method is called the supernatural and doesn’t belong anywhere near a science textbook. I personally don’t have any problem with religion — just don’t teach it in my science class.

I am also bothered by Leslie’s bashing of Richard Dawkins. He is a brilliant evolutionary biologist. To say that he and other people who believe in evolution are missing some “solid proof” isn’t just extremely biased, but blatantly arrogant. Next time you call evolution “just a theory,” remember this: Gravity is just a theory, but for some reason, your feet are still firmly planted on the ground.

Alex Arp

Sophomore biotechnology major