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
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.