Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Sept. 30, 2005)
Commentary Oregon Daily Emerald Friday, September 30,2005 NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 PARKER HOWELL EDITOR IN CHIEF SHADRA BEES LEY MANAGING EDITOR MEGHANN M. CUNIFF JARED PABEN NEWS EDITOR EVA SYLWESTER SENIOR NEWS REPORTER JOE BAILEY KATY GAGNON CHRISTOPHER HAGAN BRITTNI MCCLENAHAN NICHOLAS WILBUR NEWS REPORTERS EMILY SMITH PART-TIME NEWS REPORTER CLAYTON JONES SPORTS EDITOR SCOTTI. ADAMS LUKE ANDREWS SHAWN MILLER SPORTS REPORTERS AMY UCHTY PULSE EDITOR TREVOR DAVIS KRISTEN GERHARD ANDREW MCCOLLUM PULSE REPORTERS A1LEE SIATER COMMENTARY EDITOR GABE BRADLEY JESSICA DERLETH ARMY FETH RICHARD PRYOR COLUMNISTS DM BOBOSKY PHOTO EDITOR NICOLE BARKER SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER KATE HORTON ZANE RITT PHOTOGRAPHERS KATIE GLEASON PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER JONAH SCHROGIN SENIOR DESIGNER JOHN AYRES JONNYBAGGS MOLLY BEDFORD KER1 SPANGLER DESIGNERS CHRIS TODD GRAPHIC ARTIST AARON DUCHATEAU ILLUSTRATOR TRACY TIERNEY REBECCA TAYLOR COPY CHIEFS EILEEN CHANG IENNY DORNER JEFFREY DRANSFELDT JOSH NORRIS MINDI RICE COPYEDITORS STEVEN NEUMAN ONLINE/SUPPLEMENTS EDITOR TIMOTHY ROBINSON WEBMASTER BUSINESS (541)3465511 JUDY RIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER LAUNA DE G1USTI RECEPTIONIST JOE BEES ALAN FULLERTON RYAN JOHNSON ROB WEGNER DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541)346-3712 MELISSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR MIA LEIDELMEYER SALES MANAGER KELLEE KAUITHEIL |OHN KELLY IJNDSEY FERGUSON WINTER GIBBS KATE HIRONAKA DESI MCCORMICK STEPHEN MILLER KATHRYN O'SHEA-EVANS EMILY PHILBIN CODY WILSON SALES REPRESENTATIVES BONA LEE AD ASSISTANT CLASSIFIED (541)3464343 TRINA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KORALYNN BASHAM ANDO AMANDA KANTOR KERI SPANGLER KATIE STRINGER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541)3464381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER KIRA PARK PRODUCTION COORDINATOR JAMIE ACKERMAN CAMERON GAUT JONAH SCHROGIN DESIGNERS The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub lished daily Monday through Fri day during the school year by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Ore gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union The Emerald is private property. Unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. ■ In my opinion EVOLUTION is the solution More than 75 years ago, a teacher named John Scopes fought to teach evolution in the classroom. Astonish ingly enough, that battle continues to this day. It is no longer about getting evolu tion in the classroom; it is about keep ing baseless alternative theories out. The center of this battle is Harrisburg, Pa., where parents are challenging the teaching of intelligent design. They are looking to block the local school board from requiring that high school biolo gy teachers read a statement that pres ents intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution and the origin of life. Intelligent design says that because life is so complex, some higher form had to have created life on this planet. Essentially, it is another theory of cre ationism that doesn’t specifically name God as the higher intelligence. Propo nents of intelligent design point out that Darwinism is not able to explain several important things; the origin of life, gaps in the fossil record, the com plexity of a cell or the genetic informa tion contained within a strand of DNA. Since these things are not currently ex plained by the theory of evolution, a higher power must be at work. Of course, it is true to say that there are gaps in our knowledge, and there are things we, as humans, do not un derstand, but it is absurd to say that the only explanation for a lack oY scientific evidence is divine intervention. How many times in history have humans been unable to explain how the world works? At one point, people did not know why eclipses occurred, what caused diseases or what brought the rain. They simply lacked information, just as we do when it comes to some aspects of evolution. Just because we are not able to figure something out does not mean that the physical evi dence is not out there. Despite any gaps that there may be in the scientific theory of evolution, there are observable facts and repeat able hypotheses to support it: the process of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and adaptation. Science has credi JESSICA DERLETH FREEDOM RINGS WHERE OPINIONS CLASH bility because it can be tested, while in telligent design is just a belief, much like creationism. Leaders in the theory of intelligent design have been working to show that their theory is different than creation ism, and it is, though both ultimately point to a higher power. Creationism is based on the biblical book Genesis, which says that God created the earth and its inhabitants in six days 6,000 years ago. Intelligent design comes closer to an accepted scientific theory in that it estimates the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years old and life at least 3 billion years old. This theory purports that evolution can work on a small scale, within a species, but that it can not form entirely new species. This theory is good in that it pro vides a middle group for people who find themselves torn between Darwin ism and creationism; I don’t see a problem with people believing in whichever theory they see as correct. On the other hand, there is no place in the public school system for intelli gent design. When intelligent design points toward a higher power, it is placing itself alongside creationism, which has already been prohibited in public schools. In 1987, a Louisiana law entitled the “Balanced TVeatment for Creation-Sci ence and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act” prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools unless creation science was taught at the same time. Schools were not forced to teach creation science, but if evolu tion was taught, teachers were obligat ed to discuss creation science. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this act and the teaching of ere ationism: “The Act impermissibly en dorses religion by advancing the reli gious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. ... The Act’s pri mary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular re ligious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety... .The Act violates the First Amendment.” Furthermore, intelligent design ad vocates are silent about whether the in telligent hand belongs to God, and they try to separate themselves from cre ationism. This separation cannot be easily accomplished when the theory they support has a religious origin. The argument of a higher power is far from a new concept — in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas presented design as being one of five proofs of God’s exis tence. The modern concept of intelli gent design, which doesn’t name the agent of creation, first appeared in Christian creationist literature, includ ing the textbook “Of Pandas and Peo ple,” published in 1989. The origins of intelligent design are not the only indicators that religion is behind this theory. Philip E. Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement, has said a few things of interest: “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools,” and, “This is n’t really and never has been a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.” The father of intelligent design ad mits the theory is based on God. It could not clearer; by allowing intelli gent design into the school system, we are crossing the line between church and state. It is time that people accept Darwin’s theory of evolution as the leading scientific theory and, as such, its dominant place in our school sys tem. Evolution should not be replaced by, or even taught along side, a reli gious doctrine. jessicaderleth@ dailyemerald, com ■ Guest commentary Animal welfare relies on us all Did you know that millions perished because of Hurricane Katrina? The news reports do not share this devas tating fact — they are overwhelmed focusing on the thousands of human victims and their dogs and cats. But millions did die — birds, pigs and cows who were trapped in factory farms. Although animal sanctuary vol unteers were able to rescue approxi mately 1,000 chickens (some found alive in a mass grave at Tyson), mil lions more were abandoned by agribusiness to drown, starve in their heated sheds or be bulldozed into the trash during the cleanup (whether alive or dead). Sadly, the blind eye the news has turned toward the largest loss of life in Katrina seems reflective of the public’s general disregard for farmed animals in everyday life. Despite being sur rounded by animal products daily, our attention is not often called to their liv ing conditions, so we may be unaware of the desperate need for humane farming reforms. This week we are asked to open our hearts and eyes to acknowledge their plight. Oct. 2 is World Farm Animal Day, a date chosen to honor the birthday of Gandhi, the Nobel Peace Prize-win ning vegetarian who worked to protect all living beings. If you purchase ani- „ mal products, consider informing yourself about the real conditions ani mals face at factory farms and slaugh terhouses at www.meetyourmeat.com to see if it fits with your values, or (for a happier ending) learn more about the animals rescued at www.farm sanctuary.org. Whether the media covers it or not, agribusiness will keep intensively con fining and killing animals at rate of over a million an hour (and the num ber only increases as people switch from red meat to chicken). The misery of factory farming is an ongoing na tional tragedy that is happening on our watch — one that has developed be hind a mega-corporate curtain — shielded from public scrutiny, with lobbyists who fight any humane legal protection. The time has come to put farmed animals on the public agenda. We can do so both as voting citizens who demand humane farming legisla tion and as conscientious consumers who choose to buy plant-based pro teins instead of products gained at an animal’s expense. The tragedy of hurricane Katrina has brought out the innate compas sion in all of us. Why limit that com passion to just humans, cats and dogs? The animals trapped in factory farms deserve and need our support as well. Carrie Packwood Freeman is a doctoral student in the School of Journalism and Communication ■ Editorial Pink is all the rage in U. of Iowa locker room The University of Iowa’s football stadium gained national media attention this week — not because of a fantastic feat on the gridiron but because of the pink color of its visitors’ locker room. A recent $88 million remodel of Kinnick Stadium included painting the walls and lockers “Innocence,” painting the urinals “Dusty Rose” and laying pink carpet. The renovation continued a tradition started by former head football coach Hayden Fry, a psychology major who decorated the room pink. Erin Buzuvis, an adjunct law professor at the school, ignited the controversy, calling the locker rooms “sexist and homophobic” on her blog. She argues that “putting your opponent in a pink locker room is saying ‘you are weak like a girl’ or ‘you are weak like a gay man,”’ citing a Wikipedia entry that states pink is “now associated with womanhood.” Her arguments are a clear-cut case of po litical correctness gone too far. Many media stories report Fry chose pink because it has a calming psychological effect on opponents, making them less effective on the field. If this is true, Buzuvis’ outcry seems triv ial. And in today’s world of collegiate athlet ics, when some teams have two-story locker rooms with special lighting that simulates outdoor weather conditions, a little off-the field advantage can’t hurt. Buzuvis cites Fry’s 1999 biography, “Hay den Fry: A High Porch Picnic,” as saying he chose the color because “pink is often found in girl’s bedrooms, and because of that some consider it a sissy color.” What she doesn’t include is the context of his quote, as reported by the Press-Citizen (Iowa City): “Also, pink is often found in girls’ bed rooms, and because of that some consider it a sissy color. It’s been fun to get the reaction of visiting coaches to the color of their locker room. Most don’t notice it, but those that do are in trouble.” So much for academic integrity. It seems that Fry did have some psychological theo ries in mind and that he wasn’t primarily motivated by chauvinist tendencies after all. Buzuvis isn’t entirely off-base in her asser tion that the school should not continue a tradition started to discomfort opposing play ers by perpetuating negative stereotypes. But how negative are these stereotypes? If pink is so demeaning, why didn’t anyone vo cally complain about the color during the 20 some years it has adorned the locker room? If it makes women seem like little girls, why do women still wear pink? Buzuvis also glosses over the point that pink is becoming more commonly accepted for men, suggesting it hasn’t been truly “re claimed” — has she been to Gap lately? Yet, in all honesty, many men would prob ably still perceive a pink locker room as an insult. And if they see it as an insult, their re action is indicative of a larger societal prob lem — that the quality of femininity is seen as a weak or negative trait. Repainting the locker room won’t erase this stigma. If any thing, it will compound the problem. The Hawkeye football squad isn’t the group that should be laughing over its long-standing pink joke. Opposing players who are rattled by this foolish, out-dated stereotype should have a good, hard laugh at themselves.
