University of South Carolina Libraries
SOUND OFF sh ™LLNiE Should creation theory be added Create message boards at to college textbooks? www.dailygamecock.com or YES 43% send letters to the editor to NO 42% gamecockopinions@hotmail.com WHO CARES? 15% ■ - --- - - : IN OUR OPINION Both shuttles are valuable Parking Services is debating how to improve the benefits of the Alpha Phi Omega fraternity shuttle, which runs around the same time as the USC shuttle. Both serve distinct and valuable purposes. The USC shuttle is more of a convenience. If students see it coming, they’ll take it to avoid walking. The APO shuttle comes directly to wherever a student is on campus, and will the student volunteers will drive students directly to your car, APO’s shuttle serves a crucial need on a campus where threats of suspected criminals and mass car break-ins seem to crop up daily. dorm or wherever. APO’s shuttle serves a crucial need on a campus where threats of suspected criminals and mass car break-ins have been cropping up. Both shuttle services run throueh midnieht. Yet there is no service on Saturday and Sunday nights, and with days getting shorter, a weekend shuttle is a relevant need. USC should consider changing the runs of the two to different times of the night, perhaps moving APO’s schedule to 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. instead of the current schedule of 8 p.m. to midnight, which overlaps the the USC shuttles’ schedule. This would make the differences between the two more distinct and ensure that students have a shuttle for at least a few hours after midnight, which is a more dangerous time for students to be walking around campus. Gamecock Quotables “A lot of people don’t know what lawyers actually do.” PHYLLIS BURKHARD DIRECTOR OF CAREER SERVICES, ON CAREER FAIR “Students are on a spiritual quest.” THE REV. TOM WALL METHODIST CAMPUS MINISTER. ON RELIGIOUS LIFE AT USC “This bill has teeth that will actually make a difference.” PATRICK WALSH THIRD-YEAR SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT STUDENT, ON POSSIBLE PARKING BILL “You couldn’t have written anything worse than this. You can dream up horror movies, and they wouldn’t be this bad.” GENE ZIMMERMAN SUPERVISOR OE THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST, ON TWO OF THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE WILDFIRES LAST WEEK “We’re the only point-to point, on-demand transportation available on campus.” ANTONIO DERIDDER APO ESCORT CHAIRMAN, ON WHAT MAKES ITS SHUTTLE SERVICE UNIQUE GAMECOCK CORRECTIONS If you see an error in today’s paper, we want to know. E-mail us at gamecockopinions@hotmail.com. ABOUT THE GAMECOCK Editor In Chief Charles Tomlinson Managing Editor Adam Beam News Editor Michael LaForgia Asst. News Editor Alexis Stratton Viewpoints Editor Gabrielle Sinclair The Mix Editor Meg Moore Sports Editor Brad Senkiw Asst. Sports Editor Wes Wolfe i Photo Editor Morgan Ford Head Page Designer Shawn Rourk Page Designers Justin Bajan, Samantha Hall, Staci Jordan, Philip Whitehead Slot Copy Editors Amy Genoble, Tricia Ridgway, Mary Pinckney Waters Copy Editors Jessica Foster, Steven Van Haren Online Editor James Tolbert Public Affairs Kimberly Dressier CONTACT INFORMATION Offices on third floor of the Russell House. Editor in Chief: gamecockeditor@hotmail.com News: gamecockudesk@hotmail.com Viewpoints: gamecockopinions@hotmail.com The Mix: gamecockmixeditor@hotmail.com Sports: gamecocksports@hotmail.com Public Affairs: gckpublicaffairs@hotmail.com Online: www.dailygamecock.com Newsroom: 777-7726 Editor’s Office: 777-3914 STUDENT MEDIA Director Scott Lindenberg Faculty Adviser Erik Collins Creative Director Susan King Business Manager Carolyn Griffin Advertising Manager Sarah Scarborough Classified Manager Sherry F. Holmes Production Manager Amber Justice Creative Services Whitney Bridges. Robbie Burkett. Sean O’Meara Advertising Staff John Blackshire, Adam Bourgoin, Ben Sinclair, Jes'ca Johnson, Ryan Gorman, Laytoya Hines The Gamecock is the editorially independent student newspaper of the University of South Carolina. It is published Monday, Wednesday and Friday during the fall and spring semesters and nine times during the summer, with the exception of university holidays and exam periods. Opinions expressed in The Gamecock are those of the editors or author and not those of the University of South Carolina. The Board of Student Publications and Communications is the publisher of The Gamecock. The Department of Student Media is the newspaper’s parent organization. The Gamecock is supported in part by student-activity fees. One free copy per reader. Additional copies may be purchased for $1 each from the Department of Student Media. TO PLACE AN AD The Gamecock 1400 Greene St. Columbia, S.C. 29208 Advertising: 777-3888 Classified: 777-1184 Fax: 777-6482 ttAtLOWEEM C.OSTV ME jss&Ski, i mm. i CARTOON BY MARY PINCKNEY WATERS/THE GAMECOCK Evolution is still just a theory JUSTIN SIMMONS GAMECOCKOPINIONS@HOTMAIL.COM Dogmatic resignation makes for poor science. For the past 50 years, creation theory has been besieged and quite successfully I might add by scientists and critics who claim it has no place in the classroom. Forget about the fact that they seek to replace it with a relative ly new, untested theory of their own. The issue is not so much about dueling theories as it is du eling creators. What do I mean by dueling creators, you might ask? Well, it’s quite simple. While it is true that advocates of creation theo ry believe in a creator, those who stump for evolution play creator in their own right. Have they not concocted a the ory to suit their own agenda, much as they accuse creationists of doing? You see, I don’t mind disagreement, but I do mind when people try to turn a theory into scientific fact. Evolution has been placed on a pedestal in the science classroom that it simply does not deserve. First, evolution is still a theo ry. Critics of creation theory are quick to point out its supposed lack of scientific evidence, but seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that evolution has never been proved. Secondly, it shows an extreme shortsightedness to present evo lution as if it were fact. By taking so much pride in their intelli gence, many humans seem to forget just how ignorant we real ly are in relation to how things work. History is full of scientific the ories that were once revered as the height of knowledge, but now seem quite foolish. This rein forces the fact that as we learn new things, we are forced to re evaluate our previous positions. Great thinkers such as Aristotle once believed in the geocentric model of the solar sys tem —the sun revolving around the earth — and that the stars were hung on a fixed sphere out side the earth. These theories, once accepted as fact, are now mere scientific history. So, what does this have to do with creation theory, you might ask? It still doesn’t belong in the classroom because of its religious basis, right? Well, if you are teaching it from the Bible, that might be true, but the Bible is not the only evidence of what many refer to as creation theory. Many scientists —- not theologians — have recently developed a theo ry they refer to as intelligent de sign. The centerpiece of this theo ry is that, given the highly com plex nature of most life forms, it is highly unlikely that life could have resulted from a series of chance occurrences. They believe that complicated molecules and structures reflect a design far too intelligent to be random. While these scientists believe the complexity of life reflects the work of an intelligent designer, they refuse to make a guess as to whom that designer could be. Don’t misinterpret what I am saying. I am not advocating crack ing open the book of Genesis to ex plain the origin of life. What I am suggesting is that we broaden our horizons to accept the possibility of a higher being. While I know that accepting that possibility is a bitter pill for the vanity of humanity to swal low, I think it is important we ac cept the possibility that we don’t know all. Simmons is a third-year political science student. USC is growing more nonreligious I applaud Justin Chappell (“Organizations, courses bring religion to USC,” Wednesday) for pointing out the many op tions available to students of faith here at USC. But I implore him and others to not overlook USC’s nontheistic population. While it remains true that the campus does not have any spe cific organization that caters to atheists, agnostics and human ists, the number of such groups nationwide is on the rise. On the national level, the Council for Secular Humanism, American Atheists, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Campus Freethought Alliance serve the needs of infidels (go ing so far as to offer college scholarships, I might add). Even in the “Bible Belt” state of South Carolina, College of Charleston and Winthrop University have groups, and outside of college, tions in all sections of the state. But more importantly, the number of atheists, agnostics, humanists and nonreligious peo ple is rising all over America. A survey conducted in 1990 showed a full 90 percent of Americans were religious; today, that num ber has dropped to just more than 80 percent. Likewise, the number of people identifying themselves as Christians has fall en from 86 percent to 77 percent. To make up for the losses, the number of nonreligious people (which includes atheists, agnos tics and humanists) has jumped from 8 percent to just more than 14 percent today. America and, as a logical ex tension, USC, is becoming more nonreligious by the decade. While there are no organiza IN YOUR OPINION l I tons on campus that service the nonreligious, such groups do ex ist and offer a haven for nonthe istic people in a still predomi nately theistic world. SCOTT CURRIER SECOND-YEAR SOCIOLOGY STUDENT Wolfe’s historical sources are weak After reading Wes Wolfe’s shortsighted take on our pre sent situation in Iraq, I couldn’t help but laugh at his absurd comparisons to Vietnam, not to mention his choices of authori ty on the matter. We’ve been in Iraq only six months since the end of the swiftest, most efficient major mil itary operation in modem histo ry — not quite the same time frame as Vietnam. Democracy takes time, and so does elimi nating terrorist threats flowing over the borders of Syria and Tv'OM T ntmmnnn lirnl 11 H rather us bail out and simply leave the country in shambles. By the way, the reconstruction of Japan and Germany wasn’t exactly a “rosy scenario.” As far as Sen. John Kerry, who voted in favor of the war, we can attribute his comments as mere pandering to the far left, whose support he so desperately needs to save his fleeting presi dential aspirations. James Carville, to his credit, is not so wishy-washy. At least he’s been a blind liberal apologist from the beginning. Now that he’s not working for the Clinton admin istration, he’s getting paid to dis agree with any and all things Bush on his TV show. Carville isn’t someone I would look to for an objective history lesson. Both are off the mark, grasp ing anything to keep their free falling party, as well as their own personal agendas, afloat. Maybe next time Wolfe should examine his history books a lit tle closer, as well as understand the liberation of Iraq will not happen overnight, nor will the United States ever run from ter rorists. KELLUM MAHAN FOURTH-YEAR FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT STUDENT Adams’ column was not good satire In all of the debate over Lauren Adams’ column on ugly people and dating, one point has been lost: It’s just not funny. It’d be foolish to take it at face value, and, yes, those who object to the column because it offends them should be taken outside and shot. But Adams’ defenders Should be taken nntairie anH shnt too. The column is just not funny. There are no jokes in it that I can find, and it was clearly written just to generate letters to the editor. I know there are lots of idiots of fended by the column, but maybe none of these people would have taken it seriously—if it were fun ny. I commend Adams for at tempting satirical humor,and for riling up the readers, but she should follow the columnist equiv alent of the Hippocratic oath: First, be funny. After that, offend whomever you want. GRAHAM CULBERTSON THIRD-YEAR BIOLOOY STUDENT Submission Policy Letters to the editor should be less than 300 words and include name, phone number, professional title or year and major, if a student. E-mail letters to gamecockopinions@hotmail.com. Letters will be edited. Anonymous letters will not be published. Call the newsroom at 777-7726 for more information. Our past success will not save S. C. PATRICK AUGUSTINE GAMECOCKOPINIONS@HOTMAIL.COM Barricading the world hasn’t solved problems. S.C. Rep. John Spratt recently issued a press release urging the president to continue the widely accepted practice of protecting our state’s textile industry through tar iffs on foreign textiles. Spratt cited a recent American Textile Manufacturers Institute study that claimed South Carolina could lose 42,000jobs from the man ufacturing sector by 2006 if the tar iff structure is not strengthened. These seem to be disturbing num bers, yet they ignore realities of both economics and the historical trend in the manufacturing inrins try. Instead of backing policies de signed to get them votes, it’s time our men in the nation’s capital make decisions to help the state gain a stake in future economic growth. South Carolina has a proud his tory of sending men to Washington who put constituent service and short-term pragmatics before long term health. A wonderful example is the highway that Rep. Jim Clybum tried to build between the small communities of Rimini and Lone Star back in 2001. The proposed federal project would have cost an estimated min imum of $83 million for 9.3 miles of highway and bridges through un touched wetlands and over Lake Marion. Not only was it a huge ex ample of Washington pork, the roadway would have been chris tened the “Clybum Connector” in tribute to its champion, despite en vironmental analysis that sug gested it would have devastated a fragile ecosystem. The roadway was defeated in part because of partisan politics when S.C. Republicans flexed their collective muscle — but this end ed up being the best result as mil lions of taxpayer dollars were saved from being frittered away. Rep. Spratt is not alone in prop ping up me aying textue industry — all of the Upstate’s delegation support such measures regardless of the side of the aisle on which they sit. However, our representa tives’ lack of courage may cripple the state’s attempts to grow in the future. Far more than a simple waste of our money, this economic policy keeps South Carolina from pursuing viable alternatives to an industry likely to end in our life time. Former Govs. Carroll Campbell and Dick Riley understood that to rely on past sources of prosperity is to commit to future impoverish ment. So they lured new jobs through such businesses as BMW or, even better, encouraged educa tional innovation. South Carolina is the Third World of the United States in terms of opportunities afforded to our working classes — we are the last place businesses go for cheap labor before being eventually shipped overseas. In the same way our economy no longer relies on cotton cultiva tion, the textile industry cannot be an economic base. Instead of pro tecting it, our leaders should pur Sue Other inh nnnnrtnnitiec fnr their constituents. Democrats and Republicans need to affirm that education is the only path to a more prosperous fu ture for South Carolinians, and if we want our children to stay here, we must put our resources into clawing our way out of the base ment of test scores. Protectionism never works for long, and South Carolina deserves a thoughtful plan instead of political sandbag ging to stem the tide of economic progress. £__ Augustine is a third-year political science student.