Student Paper Ignores Religious Beliefs
Dear Editor,
Allow me to respond to the article entitled “”Controversial Origins”” by Guardian writer Jim Shen, in which he argues that religion belongs outside the science classroom. As a student at UCSD and a member of Calvary Christian Chapel of San Diego, the same church that filed the lawsuit against the University of California, I must express my deepest concern with student media commentary that displays such disregard for religious fundamental beliefs in public education.
In the article, Shen refers to the belief in intelligent design implementation in the science classroom as “”blind faith and ignorance”” that abominates scientific thought. But belief in intelligent design is neither blind nor ignorant. Believing in evolution can be considered parallel to believing in intelligent design.
Every religion has its own religious leaders and philosophers who mandate a code of conduct and understanding of the world around them. In direct dichotomy, science has its own leaders and philosophers who mandate theory, thought and a code of conduct (i.e. scientific method, equations, etc.) for understanding the world. Why is it detrimental to the future of our public education system in a country founded on Judeo-Christian values and liberty?
Why must we, as a society, be confined to only one sector of American creationist thought? As a Christian, I believe in intelligent design as the standard for creation of mankind, but why can’t science and religion coexist as parallel significant equals in public-education classrooms?
The author of the article writes that intelligent design “” … is part of a broad effort to drastically change the social and cultural fabric of the United States.”” But is it truly the believers of intelligent design that are attempting to change the social and cultural fabric of our nation? Or is it evolutionary advocates? According to the U.S. Census conducted in 2001, 79.8 percent of Americans indicated that they were Christian, compared to 15 percent atheist or agnostic. It is interpretable that most Americans, well over 50 percent, believe in intelligent design. What happened to the word “”public”” in public education? If a majority of the public believes in intelligent design, why do public education institutions such as the University of California, and the writer of the article, hold intelligent design in such invalidity?
One may argue that in this democracy the people have voted in such a manner, but I argue that we must first consider that well over 50 percent of Americans do not vote. Perhaps intelligent design advocates have not risen in a massive organized effort to demand the validation of such a belief, because they view “”crafted”” scientific thought in American society as trials and tribulations that challenge believers; in that challenge their faith is constantly tested, and only the faithful with be rewarded if they can overcome such tactful hindrance.
One thing is for certain, and that is not what the author believes (that efforts to integrate intelligent design in science classrooms will “”destroy America as a leader in scientific advancements””) but that appreciation and validation of intelligent design is the first step in creating a model democratic leader in the world of virtue and acceptance.
– Eddie Herrera
Thurgood Marshall College junior
