The letter "Intelligent design valid science, not anti-science," (SN 5/25), presented claims against three broad fields of science: evolution, astrophysics and biogenesis.
There's always a reason. Every time one of these spring-loaded sociopaths breaks out in a homicidal rage, we hear how it all stemmed from something that happened to him. He came up one hug short of a happy childhood, or his porridge was too hot or too cold, or society failed to remove a thorn from his paw.
In catastrophes like this, it is imperative to come together as humans and look to a greater good beyond our differences. A tragedy hit closer to home last year when Hurricane Katrina devastated the coastlines of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
My daughter, soon to be a summer graduate of MSU, has just had her second bicycle stolen. Although she used approved, heavy duty police recommended locks, someone still used bolt cutters.
With all the recent arguments in favor of banning abortion and implementing the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classrooms as an alternative to Darwinian theory, I took it upon myself to research what exactly has happened in our nation's rich past that has pivoted the fundamentalist Americans against rationalists. With the many losses fundamentalists have suffered to science in the past century, the current conservative control of our nation is abusing its power by trying to silence the rationalist community.
Think back to when you were in elementary school. Do you remember seeing the U.S. flag raised every day?
I'll be honest with you — I haven't missed Al Gore. After he rode off into the sunset after falling ever-so-short of moving into the White House in 2000, I've heard a murmur here or there about him teaching or working on a book, but the stories never held much interest for me. I didn't pay much attention to Gore when he was vice president because, well, he was a vice president.
Professor Hoekstra's passing comes as a shock to me, as he was a great mentor, adviser and professor who changed my life. Hoekstra was by far the most challenging, uncompromising and dedicated teacher I have ever had — someone who never let you settle for second best.
Caitlin Scuderi in her column, "Religion shouldn't define who you are; too many contradictions, too much controversy," SN (5/25), states that "We should never define ourselves by our religion … religion has little room in a modern life of contradictions." I, however, disagree. Age-tested, unchanging moral principles firmly founded in religion are just what is needed to balance the contradictions and uncertainties found in everyday life.
I enjoyed the humorous, albeit tragically misinformed, letter by Christopher Bunke "Intelligent design valid stance, not anti-science" (SN 5/25). Bunke spewed the typical bunk offered by the "intelligent design creationism" faithful, the same repackaged creationist twaddle that's been repeatedly debunked by respected scientists, philosophers and anyone with a passing understanding of the concepts involved. Creationists offer baseless assertions that evolutionary theory is "in crisis," and habitually promote a variety of fallacies, most outrageous being the ignorance-fueled nonsense that intelligent design represents a scientific alternative. Even a Bush-nominated Republican judge, who presided over the Pennsylvania intelligent design case, correctly concluded that intelligent design was not science, but merely "creationism relabeled." Evolution is demonstrably true, a fact that prompted renowned biologist Richard Dawkins to correctly assert, "You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution." The dovetailing supporting evidence is multidisciplinary, undeniable, overwhelming and still growing.
This is in response to the article written by Muslim Students' Association former President Farhan Abdul Azeez, "Professor's derogatory e-mail misses target, accidentally promotes diversity," (SN 5/22). I do not deny the role of Islamic civilization in diffusing the ideas of astronomy and mathematics to the growth of Western science.
Mike Ramsey's cartoon on May 23 went too far.
Don't forget — he said no turnips. Extra tomatoes. Sauce on side. Cut in half. Repeat order.
Brandon Peeples' letter, "Erasing system creates damaging effects for all," (SN 5/25), claims that many largely minority schools are at a disadvantage when compared to the "white" suburbs.
Open the paper to the classified section, and you will be greeted by more exclamation points and guarantees than you can handle at once.
If you haven't seen "The Da Vinci Code" yet, your roommate has. Or your parents, or your neighbor.
I have to say I was greatly disappointed when I read Megan Mccullen's opinion piece titled "Donate responsibly, check pro-science stance first," (SN 5/23). Echoing the infamous John Bice, she basically states that the theory of intelligent design is anti-science, as it allows for the possibility of a creator.
I am sick and tired of listening to people spout out lies and myths about affirmative action in attempts to justify their false idea that eliminating it will be creating "equality." In Shane Krouse's recent State News column ("Affirmative action promotes inequality; college acceptance should be hard-earned," SN 5/24), he presents two glaringly incorrect assumptions: Affirmative action is a point system, and it is truly just racial quotas. Both of these statements are, quite frankly, blatant lies. In the 2003 Supreme Court decision, Gratz v.
Where do we, as citizens, begin to draw the line between vengeance and justice? This is a very important question to ask while taking a stand on the death penalty. Whether or not people support the death penalty, it is imperative that limits and boundaries are established concerning the issue. Without setting limits and boundaries, how do we distinguish what is cruel and unusual punishment and what is not? On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to consider a lethal injection case.
Shane Krouse's column "Affirmative action promotes inequality; college acceptance should be hard-earned" (SN 5/24) shows how grossly misinformed some students are about the affirmative action debate. Affirmative action doesn't promote inequality, but I can see how one could make that misjudged inference. Yes, it does separate people based on ethnicity — but it's a separation that needs to be discerned in many cases. The objective of affirmative action is to provide minorities, who come from a lower socio-economic class, an equal opportunity in higher education.