Letters to the Editor
Intelligent design explains creation
To the Editor:Brian Reinhart's column about the "merits" of redefining other fields of science in light of the increased acceptance of the intelligent design theory does make some good points, despite the author's intended usage of these statements as mockery ("Intelligent design to take over all studies," Sept. 4).
Reinhart states that "evolution does not explain the fact that the universe is so perfectly adapted to our needs." Exactly! Isn't it strange that the theory of evolution tries to explain our world as chemicals thrown together to magically create life? It is disappointing that some of the most intelligent people in the world buy into this idea, even though the universe's most complicated creatures and processes were designed with a plan.
I subscribe to the theory of evolution: God provided an opportunity for His creation to improve through modification. By supporting the idea of intelligent design, I don't advocate the existence of aliens who created life on Earth, nor do I suggest the world is controlled by a computer. I believe God created life, and I hope to see the day when people will stop being arrogant enough to believe they are the most intelligent beings.
Don't teach any specific theory in schools. Broach the topic of creation at the university level, when students are old enough to consider the issue. If the question of where we came from arises earlier than that, parents can address their child at their discretion. Don't leave it to the biology teacher they'll dislike anyway.
Anna Wilde
Martel junior
Rec center fees burdensome to all
To the Editor:
Thank you, Michael Contreras, for pointing out hardships caused by the new gym fees for grad students ("New recreation center fees add financial constraints," Sept. 4). Many employees, looking at $288 annual fees, will likewise face a difficult decision. For example, a staff colleague who worked out regularly at the gym for the past 10 years has now decided to save money by lifting weights at home, even though she could afford the membership fee. (Undergrads are automatically taxed for the gym and thus spared from such a dilemma.)
Why does Rice subtly discourage physical activity? Why not make the gym free and charge faculty and staff $288 for access to the on-campus shuttle buses?
Many of us would be happy with a less opulent and less expensive gym. I regularly work out at 24-Hour Fitness and Bally Total Fitness, where the facilities are simpler but functional. My two nationwide gym memberships together cost considerably less than what I would pay at Rice. Moreover, these gyms have superb fitness classes, with the best kickboxing, step and zumba instructors I have seen in 25 years of doing aerobics.
It's the human talent, stupid, not the buildings. Nobel Laureate E. J. Corey was proud of doing world-class chemistry in humble lab facilities. Grandiose buildings symbolize indifference to fiscal and environmental sustainability, and, in the case of the new gym, indifference to the sustainability of our bodies. In pulchra veste sapiens non vivit honeste.
Bill Wilson
Research Scientist
Biochemistry and Cell Biology
Online Comment of the Week
In response to "Intelligent design to take over all studies," Sept 4:
"By now, the consensus among reasonable people is that modern science indicates the theory of evolution was, at best, a misguided effort."
This statement is about as far from the truth as it is possible to get. Where on earth does Brian Reinhart collect his evidence of a consensus?
"Most contemporary theorists agree that evolution does not explain the fact that the universe is so perfectly adapted to our needs."
Well, of course not! Evolutionary theory has never attempted to explain anything of the sort, any more than it tries to explain the speed of light, or the strength of the gravitational force. No one can expect any one scientific theory to explain everything.
"That is why there is increasing acceptance among the scientific community of intelligent design theory."
Far from true. The scientific community (except for a tiny group of eccentrics) shows no signs at all of even taking "intelligent design theory" seriously, far less accepting it.
And from there on the article gets progressively worse, dismissing some of the best established and soundly based fields of knowledge. "Crackpot" doesn't begin to describe it. Does this author really believe his own wild, unsupported assertions?
Ian
More from The Rice Thresher
First-ever election block party draws crowds
A line stretched across the academic quad this Election Day. In contrast to previous years, however, the line was not for voting at the Sewall Hall polling location — it was for the first-ever election block party hosted by the Center for Civic Engagement. The event aimed to encourage student voting and engagement in politics, complete with a bouncy castle, free food and a DJ.
Students pack Sid Richardson to watch election results
Around 200 students crowded into the Sid Richardson College commons Tuesday evening, where voting results played out on the commons’ screen. As Massachusetts turned blue, a loud cheer erupted throughout the room.
Waits drop after morning voters crowd Sewall polling place
On Tuesday, 1,094 voters flocked to Rice’s Welcome Center to cast their ballots in the presidential, state and local elections. Wait times climbed to an hour shortly after the polling center’s doors opened at 7 a.m., with many hoping to beat the crowds during Rice’s first-ever non-instructional Election Day. The lines calmed down around noon, when students began congregating in the academic quad for the election block party.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication by The Rice Thresher.