Page 2/The Battalion/Wednesday, March 25, 1987
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Loren Steffy, Editor
Mary be th Rohsner, Managing Editor
Mike Sullivan, Opinion Page Editor
Jens Koepke, City Editor
Jeanne Isenberg, Sue Krenek, News Editors
Homer Jacobs, Sports Editor
Tom Ownbey, Photo Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper oper
ated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan-College Sta
tion.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial
board or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions
of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students
in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Depart
ment of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during
Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examination
periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62 per school
year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on re
quest.
Our address: 'The Battalion, Department of Journalism, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4 111.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, De
partment of Journalism, Texas A&M University, College Station
TX 77843-4111.
GoirY pro
Despite a last-minute decision to leave A&M that undoubtedly
shocked and disappointed many Aggie fans, Kevin Murray deserves
congratulations.
As a player, Murray recovered from a devastating ankle injury in
1984 and came back to lead the Aggies to two Southwest Conference
Championship titles and a convincing 1986 Cotton Bowl victory.
“. . . What Kevin has really given to the team are intangibles that
are hard to define — they include leadership and the determination
to find a way to win . . A&M Coach Jackie Sherrill said.
Murray demonstrated that leadership quality and determination
throughout his career at A&M and especially during his 1986 season
in unforgettable games against Baylor University, Southern Method
ist University and during our third straight victory over the Univer
sity of Texas.
But the time is right for Murray to make his move to the pros. As
A&M Offensive Coordinator Lynn Amedee said, “What can he do
that he hasn’t done? He’s taken us to two Cotton Bowls, and he’s
been Player of the Year the last two years.”
And though the man who now holds the Southwest Conference
record for touchdown passes and a host of other impressive statistics
is heading for the pros, he hasn’t left us high and dry. Senior Craig
Stump and redshirt freshman Lance Pavlas will take over for Murray
in 1987.
To all three Aggies, and especially Kevin Murray, good luck.
Opinion
Radicals run wild at A&
What would be
the one change
you would make
at Texas A&M?
“Abolish and
obliterate Gay
Student Services
and any judge
who rules in their
favor.” “Get rid of
fraternities and
sororities.” “Fire Sullivan
President Van-
diver and rehire Gordon Eaton.” “Fire
Shelby Metcalf.” “Abolish the Gorps of
Cadets.” “Improve the counseling
staff.” “Get better faculty members.”
I didn’t say it, I just repeated some of
the responses Student Government’s
student opinion survey got, although I
do agree with at least one of those sug
gestions. The survey was administered
last fall to 1,000 A&M students with
most of the 212 responses coming from
seniors, graduate students and juniors,
in that order.
Saturday afternoon, after writing a
letter to Jim Bakker expressing my con
dolences about his sex scandal, I kicked
back on my front porch, sipped a Big
Red and read through the survey.
It seems from some of the responses
that the Aggie population has been suc
cessfully infiltrated by more than two
students who aren’t satisfied with the
status quo. No, I didn’t fill out the sur
vey, if you’re still wondering about the
Corps abolitionist in the second par
agraph.The survey questions ranged in
subject from academic affairs to cam
pus entertainment. And, of course, the
responses ranged in intelligence as well.
Along the more intelligent line, some
students suggested more night classes
and perhaps a day-care facility for stu
dents and faculty members who have
children. I guess not all Aggies are sin
gle and between the ages of 18 and 22,
suntanning themselves through college
while Dad picks up the tab. 1 hope that
doesn’t scare anybody.
Surprisingly, the question about
whether coed housing should be an op
tion on campus drew positive reactions
from about 67 percent of the respon
dents. But I liked some of the negative
responses:
“Texas A&M is a conservative school.
I respect this and so do many other indi
viduals. We don’t have to change just
because everyone else is.” I’d like to see
this person’s wardrobe.
“There is enough temptation and
sexual immorality now.” Praise be.
“I wasn’t impressed with Jester Hall
in Austin.” Then what were you doing
there, young lady/man?
Here’s another interesting question:
“Are you in favor of a student-i un
Honor Court that will have the power to
investigate alleged violations of the Ag
gie Code of Honor? (Note: This Honot
Court would have the right to suspend
and/or expel convicted violators.)”
Forget about the joker who arranged
to have this question included in the sur
vey, some of the responses are most en
tertaining.
“This is a great idea and would help
to revive Aggie honor missing in the
present-day student. However, with so
many students at this University, esjK*-
cially ones that do not care about being
an Aggie, it would be difficult to make it
work.” True Aggies are beau-ti-ful, like
a rainbow . . .
“If they threw everyone out who
broke the Aggie Code of Honor, the
campus would be empty — including
the Corps dorms.”
“Leave the vigilantism to the:
ics.” According to the survey,al»i
percent of the respondents are fad
“A code of honor should notnt-j
he enforced.” Amen.
Flipping through the surveyed
ing and contrasting some of the
lions and answers also was intern
For instance, responding to the™
about making one change at Ai
student suggested A&M have
weed-out classes.” j
Concerning the health centn
student wrote, “Get better doe|
ones that can speak English." AI
essary changes, another student
“Obolish . . . the CSS.”
1 here was a disclaimer at theti
the survey saying that the coninm
peared exactly as they were w
the respondents — grammar and
ling included.
Forget fewer weed-out classes
has a little more work to dooni
den. To cap it all off was this
“In your mind, what is the mostpn
issue which you feel that TAMt
dent Government should pursue!
I’ve selected four responses fra
list. See if you can determinewhi
spouse might l>e a “pressing m
A&M.
A) “A return to more conserve ItION:
lues and traditions.”
B) “Getting the bicycle r
sidewalks.”
C) “Improve the quality ofaoi
advising.”
D) “K ick Gay Student Sent
campus.”
Please don’t cheat off yournei;:
papet
The
to the
ment:
MISDE
• Fh
stolen.
• A
left ur
stolen f
• T
tended
jfrom si
Commi
• Ai
sign w'a
parking
• A
amond;
the she
Sterling
being r<
and-foc
Idepartr
| moped
she’d le
returne
moped
later, p
on Boyi
BURGI
• S<
worth
ported
maintei
BURGI
So
idersts I the win
and rer
the buif
HAR
• As
Mike Sullivan is a senior jo,
major and the Opinion Pageedi:
The Battalion.
■ SOUTH
Farmers WrStei
Creationism is as scientific as evolution
You are sit- —
ting in Biology Frank
in when sud- Lawrence
denly your pro- Guest Columnist
fessor starts to mmmmmmma—mmmmmmm
tell you how the human race began.
His explanation can be summarized in
few words: “From the goo, to you, by
way of the zoo!” You fall out of your
chair in abject shock, and as you look
around the room, you notice that ev
eryone else accepts his lecture auto
matically like mindless zombies.
It appears that anything a prof says
concerning evolution is regarded as
absolute fact by most students, al
though evolution is still a “theory”
long after Darwin first proposed it.
Could it be possible the public has
been duped into believing that their
great, great, ... grandfather was an
amoeba-type creature that randomly
formed into a self-replicating orga
nism? Is it possible that a much more
plausible view on the origin of species
could be valid but ignored by mains
tream science and education? This un
doubtedly has become the status of
scientific creationism.
Creationism is the view that the uni
verse, as well as man, was created by
God, as opposed to the widely held
theory that man and his environment
came into being by chance or random
happenings. Scientific creationism is
the scientific study of evidence that
points to creationism. Many make an
assumption that scientific creationism
should not be considered neither by
scientists nor in the classroom because
it seems to be a physically untestable
theory based on religious beliefs only.
This is not true. Actually, the physical
evidence supporting creationism is a
formidable set compared to the as
sumptions and speculation of evolu
tionary “theory.”
Scientific proof requires experi
mental re-enactment. Clearly the ori
gins of the earth and universe cannot
be proven scientifically. Creation can
not be re-enacted unless the creator
does it again, and the assumed evolu
tionary processes are too slow for hu
mans to measure. This precludes
these processes from use in experi
mental re-enactment. Evolution is ac
tually as physically untestable as cre
ationism. In either case, we are left
looking after the fact at the evidence
that has resulted.
However, judicial proof can be ap
plied to the question of origins — that
is, looking at the evidence and arriv
ing at a decision of what happened.
Creationism is most often ignored
and ridiculed, although it has substan-"
dal evidence in its favor. ITS. Lipson
is to be commended for his openness
and scholarly attitude in a paper pub
lished by The Institute of Physics
where he states, “If living matter is
not, then, caused by the interplay of
atoms, natural forces and radiation,
how has it come into being? There is
another theory, now quite out of fa
vor, which is based upon the ideas of
Lamack: that if an organism needs an
improvement it will develop it, and
transmit it to its progeny. I think we
need to go further than this and admit
that the only acceptable explanation is
creation. I know this is an anathema to
physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we
must not refute a theory that we do
not like if the experimental evidence
supports it.”
We have seen that we only have the
evidence left from the beginning of
life. We should look at the evidence
that each side presents. First, the fossil
record, which evolutionists use as
their major propaganda tool, actually
disproves evolutionary thinking
through the lack of transitionary orga
nisms (missing links) in the fossil re
cord. Darwin himself said in The Ori
gin of Species, . . intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any
such finely graduated organic change,
and this is perhaps the most obvious
and serious objection which can be
urged against the theory (of evolu
tion).”
The museum displays and pictures
in biology textbooks only show the
manipulative skill of evolutionists in
clouding the real picture with their
speculations.
Consider another form of evidence
— living things. The probability of a
correct sequence of DNA or protein,
needed to support a self-replicating
organism, forming by itself is prepos
terous and statistically impossible.
Even the random chance of a correct
sequence forming itself, to support a
bacterian organismm, such as E. Coli
with 4.65 million DNA bases would be
one in 10 million factorial, which is the
most absurd statistical impossibility.
Another mistake in the evolution
ists’ reasoning involves the first Law of
Thermodynamics, which states that
energy can neither be created nor de
stroyed. Scientists recently have
shown that the energy content of the
universe is far less than what would be
needed at the universe’s beginning.
The creation model accommodates
this extra energy.
If we did not evolve, how did we
come into being? Our previous argu
ment, concerning probabilities that
mentioned the absurd chances of self
formation resulting in today’s com
plex organisms, was clearly noted by
Sir Fred Hoyle in Evolution from
Space: “Once we see that the probabil
ity of life originating at random is so
utterly minuscule as to make it absurd,
it becomes sensible to think that the
favorable properties of physics, on
which life depends, are in every re
spect deliberate. It is almost inevitable
that our own measure of intelligence
must reflect higher intelligence —
even to the limit of God.”
Many scientists today realize how
impossible the formation of the cor
rect DNA sequence for any life would
have been without divine creation.
God is not religion, and if God cre
ated the world, then God is the basis
of science. It is clearly evident in these
contexts that science and religion are
inseparable. The truth of religion and
real science are mutually supporting.
As Albert Einstein said, “I only trace
the lines that flow from God.”
It is clear from these observations
that evolution should not be swal
lowed blindly without the consider
ation of an alternate explanation that
has factual (scientific) support. As
these arguments have suggested,
more extensive investigation reveals
that scientific creationism is based soli
dly on sound evidence, not on a reli
gious faith as many evolutionists
claim. Students for Scientific Creatio
nism is a student organization at A&M
providing such detailed information
on scientific creationism. SSC has
compiled a library of books and arti
cles on the topic of scientific creatio
nism, and this collection is open to all
interested students and faculty at
A&M. To gain access to the library,
check the SSC posters on campus bul
letin boards or call Jatin at 846-7950.
This will provide more extensive in
formation. SSC exists to provide this
information to you.
Frank Lawrence is president of Stu
dents for Scientific Creationism.
Columns submitted for Farmers Write should be be
tween 700 and 850 words. The editorial staff reserves
the right to edit for grammar, style and length, but will
make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each
column must be signed and must include the major,
classification, address and telephone number of the
writer. Only the author’s name, major and classifica
tion will be printed.
mmwvmmBmmmwaEtammmmitm iipmi—i iiimumbiuihbmb
■ the state
r ^ ."TTtflTttr* So this yea
>^ \ «=Trr=^ -Z _ > n K* n this (
?Tii7W^I' ,Love 11
MAKei/k hopes the
^rwnMOt-gtiidenfs o
liu k after
gE ■The Bi
'■strict saj
locally to f
Bill-. What’s this horseshoe I found hi the glove compartment!
Mail Call
We work hard for the grade
EDITOR:
Three more reasons against senior finals:
First, the scheduling of the final exams to accommodate senior finalsis
absurd. I am expected to attend classes Monday through Thursday during I
“dead week” and be introduced to large amounts of new material while
taking finals for labs and physical education classes. Then, with no break
whatsoever, I am expected to study for anil take finals for two days! The
faculty obviously doesn’t remember the stress that comes with final exams
I’m a person, not a machine. 1 need time to relax, collect my thoughts and
motivate myself to do the best I can on my finals.
Second, seniors have attended at least four years of college, not to
mention 12 years of school before that. In that time, they have taken
numerous final exams. That they are candidates tor graduation impliesttifI
have done well on those finals. Why should they have to prove one last tinj
that they can pass a final?
Finally, the semester a student graduates is one of the most hectic ones®
the school career. Seniors must make sure they have all the necessary
requirements to graduate. They aie interviewing, looking for a place toli«
and perhaps about to be married. They are forced to face the fact thatsoflU
they will be leaving friends and a school they love to face the unknown old*
“real world.” I think no other time in life is so exciting, emotional and
demanding. Why place another, and I submit needless, demand on this
person’s time? I say again, students are people, not machines. Wecanoi
take so much. A&M is a highly respected school. Employers know that toff 1
a degree from A&M requires much hard work. No one would begrudgeifr
administration if it gave its hard-working students a break — exemption
from senior finals.
Carrie Haveman ’88
accompanied by four signatures
Ifs in the dictionary
EDITOR:
A classic definition of the term “liberal” took place March 11 in the Ho”®
of Representatives when the body voted on House Joint Resolution 175,a 1
resolution to impose a 90-day moratorium on the ^40-million payment to d‘1
Contras of Nicaragua. Of the 173 conservative Republicans voting, only I’I
or less than 10 percent, voted with the Democrats, while on the other sided I
the aisle, with 253 Liberal Democrats voting, 40 of them, or just under 16 1
percent, voted with the conservative Republicans. It would be informadveil
all the “knee-jerk” conservatives if they would scan the dictionary for the I
definition of “liberal.” Incidentally, the final, futile vote was 230 for the |
resolution and 196 against. Reagan will veto it.
Carlo Decano ’53
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to idit c
for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each letter must bt
must include the classification, address and telephone number of the writer.
w
w
w