Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Evolution is a religion

To the editor,

I am writing in regard to Sheila Bapat's article discussing evolution and public schooling. As far as I can tell, Miss Bapat is asserting that evolution is a scientific theory which should be explored in schools, and creationism is a Christian belief about the origins of the universe, and that it should not be taught in public schools because of the separation of church and state.

Unfortunately, it seems that Miss Bapat is unclear with the terminology that she uses when arguing in favor of evolution and against creationism.

She seems to be confused mainly with the definitions of 'religion' and 'science'. Bapat claims that creationism should not be taught in public schools because it is a religious concept. However, the very definition of religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the nature and purpose of the universe, especially [expressing that this clause is not required] considered the creation of a superhuman agency." On the other hand, the definition of science (which evolution is often associated with) is "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws." By these definitions, I find it fairly obvious that the theory of evolution is not a science (seeing as how it relies on speculative theories and not indisputable and proven fact), but rather, it is a religion in a sense (seeing as how it explains the origins of mankind).

Moreover, when one accepts the theory of evolution as a purely secular and non-divine process, it follows that we, as a race, have no ultimate purpose whatsoever. We are animals which are merely another step in a cosmic fluke. True morals do not exist, thus giving rise to the belief that nothing is truly right or wrong. Survival of the fittest is the only law which man should live by. This then implies that as evolving animals, we should only act in ways which guarantee our survival, regardless of how 'immoral' (a concept which should be regarded as man made) it may seem. When one examines the implications of believing solely in a secular evolution of humanity, it is evident that a type of moral attitude is assumed, even though this attitude may not be realized. Unfortunately, I do not see why Miss Bapat gets into a discussion regarding creationism being taught in schools. According to her article, the bill that she is opposed to states that teachers "present ... scientific evidence that does not support or is not consistent with the theory of evolution." This bill does not advocate religion, but admits scientific truth! How can an individual pick and choose what facts to believe when they are undeniably proven! Also, Bapat asks, "Why should one religious view about how life came about be taught and others be ignored?" I totally agree with Miss Bapat. But unfortunately, the entirety of her article seems to be encouraging the teaching of one single and unproved theory, while dejecting all other theories on the subject, regardless of the truth prevalent in scientific discovery.

J. Derekh Froude

Media arts freshman