Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 2, 2001)
day, March 2, 2001 O PINION Page 7 THE BATTALION in adj.Thisrai u get an ad®? juled to endte Hie Scientific Revolution Evolution has rightful place in nation’s schools; however, religion does not ip InAueust 1999, Cl's 1 :".: the Kansas .com three hour I Board of Edu- contoTemotion hi indsided visit www.camp^ie Scientific noon. Part-tm«|orld by VOtillg )eliminate ref- "^Teneestcithe i Bxt.neiormott aeory of evolu- | anted tor pj- ' orlli'om the state public-school “J" urlculum. 'orter person laintenance c . Call 823-17 * hiring smiling"' Creationists hailed it as a moral swpkwy&Tx* ictory. Kansas Gov. Bill Graves 3rill, part-timenw ailed it “terrible, tragic, embar- assing.” Since then, Kansas has can 28i-37Miii^ unc ier intense fire from the 50rtunl,y M^ cientitle community, becoming v (8t3)96o-5:'; m finternational laughingstock” n the words of the Topeka Capi- alyournal. But Kansas, ironically, has handcvioped 1 ivolved. Two weeks ago, the board rs/wk. 846-33;; ^ res t ore evolution to the ^dwicnlnm. It did the right thing, is ca# 690-t! Svolution belongs in science class- —-ooms. Religion, however, does not. al ' ,Mt Waken by itself, evolution is a 6 -.eedrc,. ; "well-established scientific theory. / S5oo-$eoo": Thousands of other scientific theo ries obtained using the same type of LLANEOl>nipirical evidence, like cellular pringBreakK : respiration and atomic theory, are iv.travelago.cor.i t aU g|-, t j n public Schools. )RCYCLE IThe problem comes when evolu tion is compared to the Bible. The theories of evolution and the origin 3. 12.000-mte Of man have the unfortunate dis- S4 ' 50C : tinction of directly conflicting with ETS aliteral interpretation of the Bible. For example, scientists believe that Is, snakes, fate; all species on earth originated from ,5 ' 5755 a common ancestor over billions of nos puppy,neys-y ears ^ ut Bible states that God all species in only six days. good condto R Also, scientists believe that the yeiiow, wore: Jjlrth is more than 4 billion years old, but the Bible implies that the MATES Earth is only about 6,000 years old. f .'This conflict seems irreconcilable. tummer suBiSgu a. , Rock hoiio* ultras not as it the two sides can just 9573 compromise and say the earth is 2 se to campus - million years old. i ne —i As has been the case throughout location, $36C‘ 'hlman history, people will protect .their religion at any cost. o^Hardwood, - | Some fundamentalist Christians 02/26/01, 2M"' >e Apartmenls. have thus been advocating the re moval of evolution from the na tion’s schools. They have argued that evolution is scientifically flawed and should not be taught as dogma. Kansas Board of Educa tion member Steve Abrams, speaking out against evolution, said, “[Evolution] still comes across that this is dogma, that this is the only way it is.” Evolution opponents have cited supposed holes in the theory, such as the If evolution opponents are serious about eliminating the theory from science classes, then they should consider opposing science classes altogether. Evolution is based on the same evidence that all other scientific theories are based upon. lack of a complete fossil record. However, eliminating evolution shows that its opponents do not understand the purpose of science. Whereas religion relies on faith, science relies on solid em pirical evidence. In science class es, kids learn scientific theories that have been tested and retested in a consistent experimental and observational pattern. These theories are not unalter able “dogma,” and in fact are con stantly being modified to ensure accuracy. If real evidence were found against evolution and could be consistently confirmed by re spectable researchers, the theory would be altered. But despite their claims, these fundamentalists are not interested in whether evolution is good science. They are only interested in protect ing their religion. If they really cared about good science, then they surely would have taken great care to craft their own arguments in a scientific manner. Instead, their alternatives to evolution are actually scientifical ly backward. As every middle school student knows, modern sci ence follows the scientific method, which involves making a hypothe sis, testing this hypothesis, and de termining results through observa tion and experimentation. These fundamentalists have presupposed a conclusion that is unalterable (that the origin of life is as written in the book of Gene sis) and have used whatever evi dence they needed to reach that conclusion. Scientifically speak ing, this is junk. One example of this is the idea of intelligent design, which has been gaining momentum lately in the anti-evolution community. This idea basically states that life on earth is so complex that it must have been created by some intelli gent being (namely, God). As a scientific theory, this con cept fails miserably. There is no way to prove this idea. There are no experiments one could do to test this idea. It requires faith. If evolution opponents are serious atfout eliminating the theory from science classes, then they should consider opposing science classes altogether. Evolution is based on the same evidence that all other scientific theories are based upon. Throw ing out evolution would mean throwing out a number of other essential scientific discoveries, in cluding the entire fos sil record, the Big Bang theory, mod ern carbon-dating techniques, a large chunk of develop mental biology and the results of the human genome project. These all show evidence either that a number of species have, de veloped from a common ancestor or that the Earth is billions of ’ years old. Thank heavens the Bible does not conflict with the^ theory of gravity. We could alEfcfe weightless tomorrow. Matt Cannon is a senior biomedical science major. RUBEN DELUNA/The Battauon Lethal weapons training needed for Iraqi dissidents Lots-oHun.Uffl icount. M-TIft?; i(6pm-8pm) IU Inside Barrto'f Lowest price tW 846-6117. EL w .travelago.«s ; IS I ssues in Iraq are becoming even more prevalent as a new presi dent begins to develop his for eign policy. Since that president is George W. Bush, the media cannot seem to stop drawing comparisons to the former President Bush, as he was at the helm during the Persian Gulf War with Iraq 10 years ago. Despite many recent criticisms, President Bush and the U.S. government need to do whatever they can to free Iraq from the tyrant’s grip and help to bring sta bility to that area. 1 To many Americans, however, this is a situation that involves distant people in a faraway land. The closest many Americans ever get to being involved is when they cringe as they pull out their wallets to pay for gas. This will all change in this month, when members of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organi- ation composed of several dissident groups, undergoes its first round of weapons training in College Station, he training will be handled by the Guidry Group, a se- urity-consulting firm based in the Woodlands, as part of a $98 million contract. The United States officially supported the INC in 1998, when the Iraq Liberation Act was passed, promis ing $98 million in support of lethal training for the INC and other rebel groups. Debate over lethal weapons training was the INC’s fiercest fight with the Clinton ad ministration, and the training was not provided to the INC initially under the premise that the INC was not yet ready to challenge Saddam Hussein militarily. This most recent training is distinguished from its predecessors by the fact that rebels attending the five- day seminar will be trained in firearms from pistols to shotguns to Kalishnikov rifles. As reported by the Unit ed Press International (UPI), “previous U.S.-backed training for the INC has been limited to ‘non-lethaf ac tivities, such as emergency medical care, public rela tions and war-crimes investigations.” Lethal training, a necessity in the fight against someone like Hussein, is a welcome change for the INC and its members. “This is significant because this is the first lethal training,” retired general Wayne Downing, commander of the joint operations task force during the Gulf War, told UPI. “It is designed to protect, so the significance is that this is the first time they are being trained to do anything on this level.” The State Department seems a bit reluctant, how ever, to admit that lethal training is being provided. “The skills involved are purely protective and defen sive in nature of the type necessary for the INC to pro tect any non-lethal presence or activities inside Iraq,” One official said. Many are hopeful that there may be change in the way the U.S. government shows its support for a free Iraq under the Bush administration. The United States has recently pledged to enhance support for a “regime chance” in Iraq, which basically means that Hussein would be out. According to the UPI, “Although Secretary of State Colin Powell has carefully avoided making any com ments on the military aspect of the Iraq Liberation Act, his counterpart at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld, is a long-time supporter of a plan to oust Hussein through U.S.-backed rebels.” Rumsfeld and his deputy, Pjiul Wolfowitz, now deputy secretary of Defense, eken sent a letter to Clinton in 1998 that helped to lreate the Iraq Libera tion Act. The letter said, “Iraq ltoday is ripe for a broad-based insurrection. We ihust exploit this op portunity.” The letter went on to call for positioning “U.S. ground-force equipment in the fegiop, so that, as a last resort, we have the capacity to protept and assist the anti-Saddam forces in the northern and southern parts of Iraq.” Ahmad Chalabi, one of the INC’s principal leaders, believes said he thinks the group could attract a number of defectors from the Iraqi military if a presence were established inside the country. He estimated that 40 percent of the elite Republican Guard was absent with out leave. “The Iraqi army is unwilling to defend Shd- dam, but they are too weak to overthrow him,” Chalabi said. To Chalabi, the five-day seminar is a far cry from the military support and battlefield training that many INC supporters hope for. In order for the United States to protect its invest ments and interests in the Middle East, the situation in Iraq must be dealt with. The methods being used now are not working. By aiding groups such as the INC; the United States could deal with Hussein without unnec essary risk. To keep such a mission from becoming another Bay of Pigs, however, a true commitment would have to be made. Downing, a volunteer adviser to the INC, called the upcoming security training a drop in the bucket. “This is not the training they will need to put together a liberation army.” He estimated that this type of training would take, six to eight months. If the Guidry Group, with “customized solutions to security problems worldwide” gets the training job, College Station would perhaps get a f chance to play an even greater role in protecting the. world from a madman. Andrew Stephenson is a sophomore environmental design major. Mail Call Female cadets have nothing to prove In response to Sommer Bunce’s Feb. 28th article. Being a former female member of the Corps of Cadets, this is only my personal opinion, and I am not speaking for anyone else but myself. Maj. Ray said that “for a woman to come into the Corps and to re main is a personal choice.” Sure it is a personal choice but not ex clusively for women. Every member in the Corps, male and female alike, makes this choice on his or her own. Then, she said “it’s different for a young lady to date a guy in a uniform than for a young man to date a lady in uniform.” My question is: Would you want to date anyone who judges you by what you wear? I also do not agree with Barron’s words: “Women must go the extra mile to get the same credit as their male counterparts ... must prove that she is just as tough and physically capable ... ” A Women in the Corps are not indirectly forced to go the extra mile to be accept ed; they sometimes think they do be cause they are not satisfied with who they are or where they are. Throughout my four years in the Corps, never once did I have to prove anything to anyone. And maybe that is why I didn’t have to go the extra mile. I was accepted as who I am. I didn’t have to be weaker or tougher. I was simply doing something I chose to do. I did my best and never had to worry what other guys thought. I was the only female in the entire battalion my senior year, and I did not have any gender issues with any of the guys. Even after I dropped my military con tract my second year, I decided to stay be cause it was so much fun; it was an expe rience of a lifetime. I think that there is a misconception on women in the Corps. Integration is a good concept, but it seems that they are trying to enforce it too quickly. Articles like these do not help either. What if every organization in the University is to be integrated: females could join frater nities, guys in soronties, etc. What up roar might this cause? From experience, my opinion is that cur rent integrated outfits should be devel oped into well rounded and strong integrat ed outfits before the next could be integrated. You cannot just stick one female in an outfit and call that integration. It may take another 10 years or more before the whole Corps could be truly integrated. Un til then, singling women out is just a speed bump on that road. Trang Nguyen Class of ’99 CARTOON OF THE DAY "TYVE
