.Top Stories

.Front Page


.Student Life

.Science & Environment

.Arts & Entertainment



.People & Places

.Women's Life

.Military Matters





.About Us



by Shelby Tobler

In his article, Keith Lockitch wrote that this promotion of intelligent design “…is nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on science, and should be rejected as such.” He believes that “they dangle out the groundless possibility of a designer who is susceptible of scientific study in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural.” I was shocked by his vicious attack on those who support the theory of intelligent design. In my science classes I have learned that there are no absolutes in science, but simply theories that have not been disproved. Evidence is continually coming out which either proves or disproves present theories. Evolution has never been proven to be a fact and is therefore presented as a “theory,” and should be taught as such.

The idea that God exists and may have played a major role in the creation of this world, has been a part of mankind’s beliefs for as long as human beings have been on this earth. As much as evolutionists vehemently deny it, claiming that God is nothing more than a superhero in a book of fables, there is a vast amount of scientific evidence that supports intelligent design. (www.answers-ingenesis.org). With that in mind, students must be made of aware of both explanations for why they are alive, in order for them to be able to logically determine what they believe. Isn’t education all about training minds to study, think, and learn? How can that be done if half of the argument is withheld?

I agree with Lockitch in that intelligent design should not be taught in schools in order to promote a religious belief. However, we cannot outlaw intelligent design from schools simply because it promotes the existence of God, just like we cannot outlaw evolution simply because it promotes the absence of God. Perhaps evolutionists are quick to deny God because as soon as they admit there is a higher power they are then holding themselves accountable for their actions. And this leads into my disagreement with Alex Epstein and his support for cloning.

Epstein lauds cloning for its many benefits and all the possibilities that it holds for improving the quality of life for all human beings. He goes so far as to state that “at stake with reproductive cloning is not only whether you can conceive a child who shares your genetic makeup, but whether you have the right to improve the genetic makeup of your children: to prevent them from getting genetic diseases, to prolong their life span, or to improve their physical appearance.” He claims that “…embryos are not human beings, but microscopic bits of protoplasm the width of a human hair.” It seems to me that what is at stake here is the definition of a human life. Are cloned embryos not human merely because they have been created in the laboratory? If we do not value human life in its embryonic stage – perhaps its most miraculous stage, then who is to say it is wrong to choose a baby’s sex? Or height? Or sports’ ability? Some are quick to claim that the world and all the life that it contains exists by mere chance - and yet they say that we must treasure it and care for it, down to the smallest insect or microcosm. But an embryo which is the beginning of a human life? It goes to the highest bidder.

Shelby Tobler, junior pre-med major, is from Makakilo.




Kalamalama, the HPU Student Newspaper. All rights reserved.

Web site designed and maintained by Robin Hansson.

Untitled Document