February 19, 2004  
Volume 97, Issue 78  

Front Page >> Editorial > Story


> News
> Editorial & Opinions
> Arts & Entertainment
> Campus Life
> Sports


> Archives
> Search Archive:
> Browse By Date:

More Stuff

> Photo Gallery
> Comics
> Contests
> Links

Talk to Us

> About Us
> Submit Letter
> Volunteers
> Advertising
> Gazette Alumni Society


Science & religion can co-exist

Re: “No evidence equals no belief,” Feb. 12, 2004

To the Editor:
While I recognize that, to a non-believer like yourself, the Bible, Torah or Qur’an seem dogmatic, they all contain similar ground: a belief in a higher power, or in God. I am the product of parents who subscribe to two completely different religions, and I can’t say I believe in one more than the other. My view is therefore not to support a specific religion, but to support the existence of a higher power.

In your letter you have made the point that “science is your religion” and that this view does not conform with a belief in God. Fair enough, but what of the multitudes of scientists who, through their exploration into fact and truth, are inevitably confronted with the question of creationism and the beginning of time? Many renowned minds from your scientific community come to the conclusion that God must exist.

Albert Einstein believed in “the presence of a superior reasoning power” that could explain the beginning of time and the laws of the universe. Isaac Newton credits a belief in God when asked about the developments of his laws of motion and gravity. Stephen Hawking’s conclusions in A Brief History of Time point to the connection between a finite universe (one that started with the Big Bang) and the existence of God.

The inference that facts which are un-quantifiable or un-qualifiable become trite leaves no room for a discussion in the belief of love, morality or consciousness. These are three things you describe as being “vacant of physical evidence.” But, to me, they’re just as real as anything physical in this world.

Michael Yokota

To the Editor:
There is a God.

I’m a student of science and I can affirm that, although science gave us many facts, it’s far from indisputable. The entire process of science is to take existing theories and dismantle them; that is how Nobel prizes are won. In fact, no theory is scientifically valid unless it can be proven wrong.

The fact that different religions have different concepts of God doesn’t mean anything. People have conflicting ideas about what love is, what political system works best and why the Toronto Maple Leafs haven’t won the Stanley Cup in years. So naturally, something as infinite as God will generate more disagreement. That so many wars were fought over religion doesn’t say religion was to blame, because humans fight wars over anything; religion was just a handy excuse. If you want evidence of God, don’t look in the Bible, but at the complexity of your circulatory system, the light receptors in your retina or the enzymes in your pancreas. If you choose to believe they came about by chance, and stayed there because of natural selection, then you should know that the late Dr. Stephen Gould, the world’s leading evolution expert (and a confirmed atheist) once said that all of evolution was a huge fluke. Dr. Harold Morowitz of Yale University calculated the odds of one human evolving at 1 in 10 to the power of 1,250,000,000,000.

But if you don’t believe in God, I respect that. Because for you to believe that life on Earth came about due to an infinitesimal fluke requires as much blind faith as believing in God.

Josh Price
Biology II

Listen to Lyndon B.

Re: “Dubya rules,” Feb. 13, 2004

To the Editor:
To quote Lyndon B. Johnson, “a president’s hardest task is not to do what is right, but to know what is right.”

Very few people would deny Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and Iraq (and ultimately the world) is a better place now that he is no longer in power. However, this still fails to justify the military action taken by Coalition Forces. Disregarding the questionable motives surrounding the war, the thousands of civilian deaths and the Pandora’s box of forced regime change, the key issue lies in the fact the war in Iraq was an illegal war and threatens the credibility and future of the United Nations.

We find ourselves in a time when countries such as China or India could very well become superpowers within the next 20 years. We desperately need organizations such as the United Nations firmly in place to ensure international security and to prohibit the violation of global human rights. Prime Minister Paul Martin made this clear when he chose to meet with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan before meeting with President Bush in January of this year.

Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, contrary to what ‘some’ may naively believe, the war in Iraq has actually been a major threat to world peace, as opposed to securing it.

Ashkan (Sean) Shoamanesh
Science III


To the Editor:
Ken and Barbie were both longtime friends of most girls, and Ken was the man that set the standard for all men. Unfortunately, on Feb. 12, 2004 after a strong 43-year relationship, they broke up. Some say Barbie may be going through a mid-life crisis, but I believe Barbie just got bored and wanted something new and exciting. Barbie has started seeing a young, boogie-boarding Australian named Blaine, who is nowhere near as hot as Ken. He’s more of a punk, bad ass, beach bum.

As a child, I was a huge fan of getting Barbie ready and dressed for a night on the town with Ken. He would pick her up in his hot pink Jeep and show her a nice night and bring her back at a respectable time. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am deeply offended by this change in men.

How can Mattel just dump Ken like that and replace him with someone that cannot compare? Ken was an amazing guy and just because he wasn’t prepared for marriage doesn’t mean Barbie should just leave him on the side of the road. Some men are afraid of the final commitment, but come on Barbie, why just throw all that down the drain?

Hopefully, Barbie will notice Blaine is just another player looking for a piece of ass, and Ken was the real thing.

Necia Martins
Science I

Don't like it? Don't read it

Re: “Taking issue with the Sex Issue,” Feb. 18, 2004

To the Editor:
I would like to congratulate all offended readers of the sex issue for ruining it for the rest of us. Although not all students at this school choose this apparently mortifying and appalling lifestyle, but many students do — I am one of them.

The issue of The Gazette directing the sex issue only to the heterosexual male population at this school is a crock. I am a full out heterosexual female and I read it cover to cover as I saw many women doing at this school last Friday. Do you really think everyone who read it sat there starring at the cover trying to absorb all its content? No, they flipped through it like they do every paper. Who cares about the cover, really?

A person’s time at university should be one of the best of their lives —for most readers, sex will be part of it whether you like it or not.

I think of myself as an intelligent, athletic and fun women. I do like to have sex, as do most people at this school, including women, men, your profs, your TAs, your cafeteria lady and the guy that sits next to you in whatever class you take.

This is not a time to play the feminist card. People have sex and want to read about it… you don’t like it? Don’t read it.

This is just like when I was a kid and my mom made this gross casserole. I’d complain and tell her how gross it was, and she would just tell me, “You don’t like it? Don’t eat it.”

Shut up about it and let the rest of us enjoy it!

Shari Robitaille
Civil Engineering II

The USC: money-thieving and useless?

To the Editor:
What does the University Students’ Council do exactly?

I mean, aside from $500 from me each of the last four years.

I know they do some charity work and donate money to some clubs. But if I wanted to donate money to charity I would, and if I wanted to join some clubs, I’d pay for that too. (Last time I checked, you need to pay to join most clubs anyway).

Why do I need to give money to the USC to donate to charities when I could donate to the charities directly (and that’s if I wanted to)?

Apparently, the USC runs the University Community Centre, The Wave and The Spoke. Well, aside from the athletic facilities, which I admit are great, the UCC is crap. The Spoke and the Wave are always in financial trouble and are complete dumps.

I’ve heard the USC lobbies the government to lower tuition fees and discuss other things that concern the average student at Western, but tuition fees have gone up every year I’ve been here. I know next to nothing about student politics, but I do know others also have no idea what the USC does. I don’t know anyone on the USC, so I am asking anyone who knows, what does the USC do and why does it deserve my money?

Enlighten me.

Warren Chan
Geography IV



Editorial Links

© 2003 The Gazette  
BluThng Productions