Cartoons do an excellent job at pointing out Bush hypocrisy

To the Editor,

Garret Baker describes some recent cartoons as being "Bush and Christian-bashing," (as though they were the same thing) and claims they "aren't any good." I disagree. These cartoons are clever, relevant and a refreshing break from the mainstream media's "yes-man" response to the current administration's policies.
If it were only a matter of taste, I could perhaps understand Baker's reaction. But he completely mischaracterizes these cartoons, which so obviously do not mock Christianity, but rather do an excellent job of characterizing and satirizing Bush Co.'s appropriation of "Christian values" in order to further its own anti-Christian agenda. This hijacking of the teachings of Jesus is extremely offensive to many Christians, who are appalled that these teachings are being used to support policies that negatively affect those who are most in need.
Christian readers should keep in mind that Jesus most concerned himself with "the least of these." This includes the poor, the hated, the disenfranchised and the "sinners."
Cartoonists and other commentators should not be intimidated by such name-calling and mischaracterization; the extreme right-wing employs similar tactics as it attempts to smear anyone who disagrees with its policies. If the cartoons are "base," perhaps Baker and others who are so offended by these cartoons ought to take a closer look at what, specifically, makes them "base." There's nothing lower than putting on the "Jesus hat" to forward your own anti-Christian, anti-humanist agenda... It's the subject of the cartoon that is base, not the cartoon itself.

--Andrea Gardner
English graduate student

Debate over theories has been misunderstood, misconstrued

To the Editor,

Proponents of the evolutionary viewpoint have been saying that the intelligent design theory is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt on the part of religious conservatives to put God back into schools. This is generally correct. It has been claimed that ID is not properly a theory, inasmuch as it cannot be falsified; nevertheless, it should be granted that its verification lies largely outside the realm of scientific investigation. The real fight is not over what is demonstrable from the set of presuppositions science accepts, but rather over whether or not truth is properly encompassed by those suppositions; over the meaning of truth itself.
There is the notion that life may be neatly divided between the Real and the Meaningful. In the Real we place things commonly known as hard facts. This simply means people don't fight about them. Into the Meaningful we are expected to pack away everything that makes us who we are. This includes our idea of right and wrong, things we like and dislike and the idea of love itself. The Meaningful is considered private, relevant only to self and immune from criticism. It is this dichotomy that is destroying us.
When we teach a child that the Real isn't meaningful, and Meaningful isn't real, we cut away any notion of what he should or ought to do, and leave only what he wants to do. The results are clear: teen pregnancy, drugs, violence in schools, etc. The struggle is against these, rather than scientific progress.

--David Manning,
mathematics graduate student

Intelligent design explains what evolution cannot explain

To the Editor,

Science is the untainted search for truth, regardless of where the evidence leads us. For a scientific theory to hold its own weight, it must be testable, and the test for ID is given to us by Darwin's "Origin of Species." Darwin provided certain conditions that, if proved true, would disprove evolution. One of these is the statement that if part of an organism can be shown to be irreducibly complex (not from gradual, progressive, beneficial changes), evolution did not occur. One example is the cilia, the tiny hair-like structures in single-celled organisms that propel and protect the cell. Electron microscopes have shown that each structure is made up of over 200 protein parts. Each part by itself is useless, and the system is entirely useless and actually hinders the cell if missing just one. Therefore the system is irreducibly complex.
Is ID a religion? Absolutely not. A religion is a personal set of institutionalized systems of attitudes, beliefs and practices. ID is not a theory created by Christians to undermine science, but a theory created by scientists who wanted to better explain the world around them.
ID encourages the search for knowledge. For example, if we decide life was designed, who designed it? From what? Maybe most importantly, why? The search for these answers is the next logical step in the progression of science. The truth in natural selection helped the advancement of medicine and DNA, but due to failures in evolution, it cannot take science any further.

--Jesse Sandlin,
chemical engineering freshman

Women with families should reconsider working outside home

To the Editor,
In response to Fredrickson's letter about Showell's excellent column: It is shameful that so many people have disdain for full-time moms. I too hope to be a full-time mother, and while I do not know whether I will get married and start a family right after college or later, I have no qualms about foregoing an outside-the-home career for children.
Fredrickson makes a mistake when he depreciates "traditional family values" and all but says that money is necessary to be happy. Ever since we have begun to relieve mothers of the responsibilities of children and send them out to make second incomes, we have begun to see the family break down. There's nothing wrong with a woman having a job, or even being an attorney. But if she has a family, she should seriously consider the consequences of putting her career above all else. Money cannot be classified as holding the same importance as love and family. Also, one does not have to hold a high-paying job such as an attorney to build monetary wealth. Nor should the husband take over the job of homemaking; I strongly believe homemaking is a woman's responsibility. Showell, I applaud your decision, and I hope more people, especially young women, begin to realize that family is far more important than all the money in the world.

--Bethany Burklund,
classics sophomore
hello there & you too