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.