Dear Editor:
The Eagle's staff editorial titled "Bible Should Skip Class," although characteristic for an AU Eagle editorial, laden with rhetoric and stock language, really does not make an effective argument against teaching creationism in schools. Evolutionists, more times than not, find themselves left of center on the political spectrum, and with this comes a typical liberal need for being accepting of other perspectives. Hence, the editorial says, "Religion and science need not be in a constant state of war..." But also, in typical liberal fashion, we need only be accepting of other perspectives as long as they are not conservative or Christian-associated in any way: "Those in favor of creationism in the classroom are usually those who take a literal interpretation of the Bible, which can be dangerous if taken too far." Dangerous? I pose the question to the editors of The Eagle: When was the last time an Evangelical Christian, Pentecostal Christian or even a devout Catholic for that matter put you in danger, except of course in last year's presidential election, which some of you still think you won?
"While everyone is free to believe what they wish, we must not forget that science is science." I love these sorts of statements often made by evolutionists, because it really exposes them as being more ridiculous than I previously thought. With one definitive, all-encompassing statement, The Eagle has proven the THEORY of evolution, with particular emphasis on the word theory, true when it says "Science is science." Thanks for clearing that up for me, because I was under the impression that the leading SCIENTIFIC species theory pre-Darwin was that of LeMarck, which argued that animals' needs were simply met when appropriate. This meant that a giraffe's neck would just grow to reach leaves on high trees ... instantly. Science is science.
The editorial also says, "[The Bible] is above all else a statement of religious principles, and is therefore not suitable to be referenced in schools." Public schools perhaps, but we must not forget, and I don't see how the editors ever could, considering how much people complain about the exorbitant cost of this institution, that we are not a public school, but a private one, which excludes us from the separation clause.
Jeremy Schneider Junior, CAS
