Trust in science and creator require same faith, despite beliefs\nIn his article "Fact, faith and fiction" (Feb. 7), Evan Ross reveals quite clearly his animosity toward "fundamentalist Christians" who have the audacity to choose not to believe in the evolutionary theory. He writes that these people base the ideas on human origin -- creationism -- on "faith," whereas those who believe the evolutionary theory on "scientific evidence." What Ross may be overlooking is the presence of faith in all people whether they believe in God or not, whether they are religious or not. \nAs much as we hate to admit it, as much as we may fear it -- there is an element of mystery in this world. We cannot understand everything, cannot explain everything: Faith in something is a necessary element to human existence. Some people believe, by faith, in a supreme creator and others believe, by faith, that scientists have authority in explaining our world by means of tests and experiments. Many creationists also have this kind of evidence to support their claims. Either way, one believes in something he himself has not seen.\nHeather Miller\nSenior
Creationism is evolution's equal\nThis is a response to Evan Ross' "Fact, faith and fiction" column (Feb. 7).\nTo begin, let's go over some simple vocabulary. The definition for theory is: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena." In the article, however, it is claimed that theory in worldviews is synonymous to "educated guess" (or, should we say, hypothesis) and in science "explanation based on facts." The latter part of the definition of "theory," accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena, was left out. With this in mind, creationism, much like evolution, can be deemed a theory. Like most theories, it should be taught in public schools.\nOn the basis of physical evidence, yes indeed, whales do contain vestigial pelvic bones, but is it the same kind as the ones on the land mammal they evolved from? No, the earliest physical evidence is fossils from a complete aquatic animal. In order for the evolution to happen, the pelvic bones would have had to have been eliminated. If this were to happen, the tail movements would crush parts of reproductive system. On a land mammal, the shrinking of the pelvic bone would lead to the inability for an animal to stand on its hind legs. So where is the link between the two? \nMost of us would agree that eyewitness is a very important factor in showing evidence. To say that creationism and the Bible are solely based on faith and are immeasurable is false. For one thing, the stories of King Nebuchadnezzar are taught in school history courses as facts but his legacy is also captured in the Bible with many parallels. On the subject of faith, the Christian "faith" is based on the death of Christ, and in order for there to be faith, there must be facts that he died. Papais, a student of the apostle John, confirmed that Mark, the author of the first gospel, was accurate in his writings based on Peter's eyewitness of the death of Christ.\nJon Chan\nSophomore
Don't hide behind evolution theory\nEvan Ross' rant on evolution in Monday's IDS contained some rather interesting propositions ("Fact, faith and fiction"). Unfortunately, Mr. Ross appears to have evolved from rather primitive apes and seems to have retained their inability to formulate a good argument.\nThere are many glaring assumptions that he makes in his article. First, he assumes that all skeptics of evolution are "fundamentalist Christians." This is simply not the case. There are many scientific reasons to doubt evolution. First is the simple fact that fossil records, especially for certain families of animals, contain many more species than currently exist today. The theory of evolution would insist that time would lead to greater diversity among animals. Instead, today there are more than six billion humans inhabiting the globe, and no subspecies among them has begun to evolve different specialized functions from the rest of the population.\nAlso, the possibility of living organisms being created from inorganic material is extremely minute. Also, such conditions that would be required probably would have meant that those organisms would not have been able to survive for long (reactions created by heat, toxic gasses mixing, etc.). Despite the fact that evolutionists have their theory, it does not explain creation.\nMr. Ross seems to confuse the ideas of creation and evolution. Evolution explains the supposed changing and adaptation of organisms over time, while creation explains how these original organisms came about. As Mr. Ross points out in his own article, in theory, there is no conflict between the two ideas, because the theories explain two different events. It is fine to make an argument against creation, but don't hide behind evolution to do it.\nFinally, Mr. Ross, as a Christian, I do not appreciate being told that Christians are "not as evolved" as everyone else. Social Darwinism was the argument Hitler used for attempting to exterminate the European Jews and is not an acceptable stance today. Please remember that bigotry in the name of "science" will never be accepted.\nStephan Jerabek\nJunior
How far will Republicans go?\nAs I'm sure the College Republicans know, because of a shortage of military personnel, a great number of our troops in Iraq have been forced to stay long past their agreed-upon tours of duty. Why haven't the College Republicans helped to alleviate this problem by joining the Army? If, as some of its members professed at a rally on Monday, Jan. 31, they support President Bush's no-exit invasion of Iraq, they should prove it. The local Army recruiter is located at 327 S. Walnut St., Suite 102, at the corner of 3rd St. I challenge you to put your life where your mouth is. \nJustine E. Peckner\nSenior
What burdens each side must bear
\nI'm writing in response to a letter sent in by Ken Dau-Schmidt under the heading "Practice what you picket" (Feb. 3). Dau-Schmidt asked the College Republicans "Why aren't you in Iraq?" He went on to tell of friends who served in Vietnam, called supporters of the Iraq war "hypocrites" and ended by saying, "It is much harder to be an adult and bear the responsibilities of your position." I certainly respect the sacrifices made by Dau-Schmidt's friends in Vietnam. However, according to Dau-Schmidt, a Republican's responsibilities include holding a gun while a Democrat's responsibilities include holding a sign; he then insists that each side "bear the responsibilities." How convenient.\nTim Roy\nFreshman
At least President Bush knows history\nI read the article last week about the protest on campus and have also read the responses from the protesters in the paper ("War in Iraq at center of campus clash," Feb. 1). I suggest that these graduate student protesters read some history books and do some "honest" analysis.\nMany protesters do not know that a U.S. general, General Douglas MacArthur drafted Japan's Constitution and that the U.S. occupation of Japan lasted until 1952. The U.S. military set up and held elections in Japan, and for the first time women in Japan had the right to vote (sounds a lot like Afghanistan). Throughout all of this, Japanese insurgents continued to kill U.S. soldiers and tried to create roadblocks to the U.S. efforts to create a democracy. And yes, current protesters, how did all this end up? Well, I think it is quite obvious. Japan now has one of the largest economies in the world, a great competitive education system and most of all, they have a free society.\nThe same could be said about Germany. We came, routed out the evil Nazis and created a democratic West Germany. Here, too, many U.S. soldiers died after the war. Many Nazis killed Americans that occupied Germany; they were called "werewolves." Today we still have a large U.S. force in Ramstein, Germany. In the next year, the Bush administration is removing many of them, sending them to Iraq and other places. I guess the German occupation will finally be over there for all you protesters. Germany became a free society, where today they even have the freedom and expression to say they were not for this Iraq war. \nThe point here is to learn from history by comparing apples to apples and not keep screaming about the orange (Vietnam). I leave you with a quote that sounds like President Bush but is actually from Gen. Douglas MacArthur after the U.S. occupation in Japan began Sept. 2, 1945: "To the Pacific basin has come the vista of a new emancipated world. Today, freedom is on the offensive, democracy is on the march." At least we know that President Bush has read some history. \nDoug La Vave\nAlumnus
War is obscence needs to be debated\nI am writing this letter on behalf of AOI (Against Occupation of Iraq). It was a response to the article published in the IDS on Tuesday, Feb. 1, "War in Iraq at center of campus clash."\nLet us start by contesting the counting abilities of IDS reporters. There were no more than five counterprotesters and around 60 protesters at noon on Monday, Jan. 31. \nWe will not contest the obscenity of the 'F' word. However, what is the 'F' word when compared to America's imperialistic actions in Iraq? Isn't the use of torture obscene? Isn't the use of depleted uranium obscene? Aren't the so-called strategic bombings of hospitals and heavily populated zones obscene? Isn't the mockery of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq obscene? Isn't the systematic elimination of potential witnesses of American brutalities in Iraq obscene? Isn't the death of more than 100,000 Iraqis since the beginning of the occupation obscene? \nWe may be bending the meaning of the word "obscene" but simply to highlight how incredibly enraging this situation is. According to the representatives from the IU College Republicans, Against Occupation of Iraq (AOI), Bloomington Peace Action Coalition (BPAC) and other anti-occupation protesters are "irrelevant." Isn't it racist to believe that the loss of Iraqi lives for oil is "irrelevant"? How can they say that the desire to inform American people of the brutality and the ignominy of the U.S. government's actions in Iraq is "irrelevant"? \nAOI demands the immediate withdrawal of the United States from Iraq. This is an illegal, unjust and brutal occupation which creates strife for the Iraqi people. The so-called democratic elections were far being so. The U.S. government carefully screened the candidates allowed to participate and made sure only parties supportive of the occupation could run. AOI, a non-partisan action group, encourages students and member of the community to join in our struggle against the U.S. empire.\nSandrine Catris\nAOI co-founder, graduate student
Hard work ahead to make a democracy\nPropaganda succeeds better when grounded in fact. "We Are All Iraqis" (Charlie Szrom, Feb. 3) conveys touching sentiments for valiant causes while losing its dignity of credibility amidst the sea of sweeping generalizations. Those willing to listen to more than a sound byte know that Iraq is neither Nazi Germany nor a verified democracy. \nIf Mr. Szrom had waited a day to publish his piece, he may have read The Associated Press release boldly titled "Iraqi Election Illegitimate in Sunni Eyes" (Feb. 3) before proclaiming the election as the Sunnis' most promising step toward integration. Perhaps he was too busy looking for a more credible source, like an anonymous online journal that speaks of zombies and profanity. While more thoroughly examining sources, Mr. Szrom might also learn that Hitler's career began by being voted into power under a democratic regime imposed after a war. \nCliches don't prevent corruption, and we must tread very carefully with both action and word, or Iraq will be the next terrorist training camp. Hard work remains if we are to turn the heaps of smoldering ruins and corpses into a fair cost for Iraqi freedom. Roll up your sleeves if you want to help and leave the spin artists to their turntables.\nDaniel W. Cappy\nSenior
Comlunist not a Biblical authority\nThis letter concerns Colin Dugdale's "Rough Writer" column on Wednesday, Feb. 2 ("If I had a hammer").\nMr. Dugdale makes an exquisite point: the Bible is a powerful tool that is often abused and must be considered with caution. And I agree in principle with most of his column. Most of the examples he gave to prove his point were reasonable and valid, not to mention entertaining.\nHowever, I was mystified by his blatant misuse of the Bible in a column dedicated to combating Biblical abuse: "e.g., regarding same-sex marriage." Beyond the fact that most of the tens of millions of evangelical Christians in America would vehemently disagree with his theological stance on the issue of same-sex marriage, I would be most interested in where Mr. Dugdale received the authority to redefine Biblical marriage into whatever feels good today. Does he have an extensive background in Biblical studies? A seminary degree? Anything that at any time might in any way qualify him by even the lowest standards to make such a sweeping theological pronouncement? Or is he a wannabe journalist commenting on something he knows very little about? \nOne need look no further than Nathan Lewis (the "hate preacher") to see the dangers of ignorance aflame applied to the Bible. Clearly Mr. Lewis proves the point that the Bible can be used to promote hate. And while Mr. Dugdale is clearly not delivering a message of hate with his column, he does steer dangerously close to the shoals of reason-gone-awry when he uses the example of homosexual marriage and 1 Thessalonians 3:12 to further prove Biblical misinterpretation, suggesting that those who would hold such a position are homophobic or racist. By taking such a stance, Mr. Dugdale only reveals his own ignorance aflame.\nTo speculate on Biblical interpretation, which he is not qualified to do, is ignorant. To accuse millions of evangelical Christians, including many top scholars, of racism and homophobia is ignorant, inflammatory, anti-intellectual and perhaps even mean-spirited in its own right. Read your column, Mr. Dugdale. "The Bible is a powerful tool. Remember to use with caution."\nJon Smith\nChristian Challenge director, Bloomington
Those without $100,000 aren't lazy\nThis letter regards Delp's column "Backhanded Tax Logic." Ignoring for a moment the debate about whether a 1 percent tax raise for those grossing $100K+ is a solid fiscal strategy, I find Delp's suggestion that such a tax penalizes "hard work" appalling. Delp apparently feels that those of us who can't muster a six-digit salary are in this position because of our laziness and that it has nothing to do with the financial and social opportunities we are granted at birth. The "American Dream" is just that for the majority of the American people, even those who work two jobs and sacrifice all luxuries.\nSince Delp apparently believes people who earn less than $100K aren't working hard enough to earn their keep, perhaps their services could be withheld for a week to correct his way of thinking. Such individuals would include those from any form of customer service, secretarial work, garbage collection, building services, delivery services, restaurants, grocery stores, janitorial services, probably most of the AIs and professors at IU and Delp's fellow workers at the IDS. Historically, factories and societies have crumbled far faster when these worthy individuals have gone on strike than when the "hard working" economic elite have taken an extra week of vacation. \nRonda L. Sewald\nGraduate Student
Justice system racially biased \nThis is in response to Adam Sedia's column in the Friday, Feb. 4, edition of the Indiana Daily Student.\nIt is a sad testament of our time when comments such as the ones made by Sedia completely resist the notion that racism is rampant in our judicial system still today! When still many African-American men and women are housed in the prison complex unjustly, and our society refuses to examine why this is still so frequent, Sedia's opening comments are perplexing as well. At one point he says it was harmless (the "dago" comment), and then he goes into the next paragraph saying, "it would be false to say such a comment is meaningless." I mean, come on, show some consistency. You end by saying such terms are harmless, but I don't think (and why should I be surprised by this) you are aware of the violence behind such terms as "nigger" or "bitch" or "dago"; even if they do not escalate into "twisted ideologies," they are always violent by intent. \nSo, I think you need to sharpen your historical knowledge a bit before spewing these types of nonreflective and short-sighted stances. Actually, Sedia, your comments sadly reflect the position of privilege you occupy in this current time, here at IU and globally. And your thought that you are dropping any bomb of significance is at most laughable and atomically sad.\nByron B. Craig\nProgram Chair, Black Graduate Student Association
