Spring Break
Religion is based on faith; evolution is based on fact
Issue date: 10/22/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Editor,
While strong religious views certainly have their place in our society, the letter in Wednesday's Daily Lobo by Dennis Kinzler gives the impression that they need to be incorporated into every aspect of everyone's life. Science is not based on what someone said 2,000 years ago. Rather, it is based upon observation, theories, discussions, refutations and quite simply learning about the world in which we live. Yes, some of these discussions date back thousands of years, and many of them have been relabeled as facts instead of theories. In the case of evolution, we are still finding new supporting evidence. Looking back 2,000 years, who could carbon-date artifacts? Who could DNA-test animals to see how closely they are related? Or who was interested in the fossil record?
Kinzler argued that we cannot put any stock into the theory of evolution simply because it is not an old-enough theory. If that is the case, Christianity and Islam would have never become the religions they are today. Everything has a beginning, and evolution was given its stronghold by the genius of Charles Darwin. Darwin was not the first to write about evolution -he was just the most accepted. He didn't publish his theory for many years due to a fear of rejection from the religious viewpoints of the day. Darwin did not cook up a theory to distract people from their religious views. He simply observed natural selection and formed a theory from it. This theory is now generally accepted in the scientific community because of the overwhelming amounts of evidence to support it.
Throughout history, theories have been rejected due to radical thinking. Take for instance, Galileo, who was persecuted by the church for believing Earth was not the center of the universe. In the 1600s, when this view was new, it was neither legal nor accepted. Can you imagine a scientist today who would try to teach that the sun revolves around Earth? He would be laughed out of a university. So, just because Kinzler does not believe in evolution, that does not mean it should not be taught to the expanding minds of current biology students. If he does not want to learn it, perhaps he should stick to Religion 107 or one of the other religious courses offered through our diverse University. On the other hand, perhaps he should spend more time at church where the Bible can teach him all he needs to succeed in life.
Christine Cooper and
Casey Kylee Mullen
UNM students
While strong religious views certainly have their place in our society, the letter in Wednesday's Daily Lobo by Dennis Kinzler gives the impression that they need to be incorporated into every aspect of everyone's life. Science is not based on what someone said 2,000 years ago. Rather, it is based upon observation, theories, discussions, refutations and quite simply learning about the world in which we live. Yes, some of these discussions date back thousands of years, and many of them have been relabeled as facts instead of theories. In the case of evolution, we are still finding new supporting evidence. Looking back 2,000 years, who could carbon-date artifacts? Who could DNA-test animals to see how closely they are related? Or who was interested in the fossil record?
Kinzler argued that we cannot put any stock into the theory of evolution simply because it is not an old-enough theory. If that is the case, Christianity and Islam would have never become the religions they are today. Everything has a beginning, and evolution was given its stronghold by the genius of Charles Darwin. Darwin was not the first to write about evolution -he was just the most accepted. He didn't publish his theory for many years due to a fear of rejection from the religious viewpoints of the day. Darwin did not cook up a theory to distract people from their religious views. He simply observed natural selection and formed a theory from it. This theory is now generally accepted in the scientific community because of the overwhelming amounts of evidence to support it.
Throughout history, theories have been rejected due to radical thinking. Take for instance, Galileo, who was persecuted by the church for believing Earth was not the center of the universe. In the 1600s, when this view was new, it was neither legal nor accepted. Can you imagine a scientist today who would try to teach that the sun revolves around Earth? He would be laughed out of a university. So, just because Kinzler does not believe in evolution, that does not mean it should not be taught to the expanding minds of current biology students. If he does not want to learn it, perhaps he should stick to Religion 107 or one of the other religious courses offered through our diverse University. On the other hand, perhaps he should spend more time at church where the Bible can teach him all he needs to succeed in life.
Christine Cooper and
Casey Kylee Mullen
UNM students
Anonymous posts are no longer allowed. They will not show up.
You must be logged in to post!
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 3
The Knight Of Light
Shawn Knight
posted 10/22/07 @ 4:18 PM MST
Well said! Science and religion are two separate elements of society and need to remain so. Combining them in anyway makes for a hard sell for either idea. (Continued…)
Katie69
Katie69
posted 10/24/07 @ 10:22 AM MST
What One Famous Scientist Said About Evolution
"One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. (Continued…)
Post a Comment