It is indeed true that we attend a private institution and thus are released from forcibly separating church doctrine from state enterprises. However, as a paying student of this University, we are entitled to a certain standard of academic integrity, which excludes Biblical references as credible scientific sources. Some might argue that this is an unfair statement to make, that, in actuality, evolution is only scientific conjecture that doesn't warrant academic reliability.
The basis of this argument is highly semantical. As a previous article declared, evolutionism is only a theory. It is absolutely true that evolution is scientific theory. Perhaps what is not clear is the definition of theory. In daily language, "theory" connotes an ambiguity of fact. In science, theories are explanations of several related observances based on existing laws. It suffices to say that these theories are more like laws than hypotheses. Theories help to explain complex systems of events rather than a law that governs a single action.
But regardless of whether or not these theories are replaced and expounded upon, the facts remain. For example, Newton guessed that there was a force that pulled apples from the tree. Einstein theorized it was gravity (which is indeed a theory, not a law, as is the theory of relativity). We can all agree that gravity exists, despite it being a theory. And should some more astute theory about gravity replace Einstein's, it will not alter the fact that apples fall from trees instead of fly in the air, as Newton suspected long ago.
Similarly, evolution theory suggests a semantic representation of the progression of species throughout time. Regardless of if another theory surfaces to explain it, the facts remain that chimpanzees have 98 percent DNA similarity to humans, whales have vestigial hip and finger bones, and humans still have pesky wisdom teeth that are remnants of a time when teeth were not only used for chewing food, but also as a tool.
In fact, strict interpretation of the Bible as an accurate scientific and social model does present a danger. It inherently limits and rejects certain academic endeavors without cause, except that they conflict with the messages in the Bible. It prejudges most scientific findings as blasphemous and impedes academic advancements, as Galileo discovered many years ago when he theorized that the Earth moved around the sun. Furthermore, such a narrow and literal reading of the Bible leads to physical conflict. Recently, the terrorism in Northern Ireland, the abortion clinic bombings and the death of Matthew Shepard can be attributed to religious disputes. In the past, such fundamentalist views of the Bible have been the force behind the Spanish Inquisition and bogus witch hunts.
This is not meant to be a criticism of the Bible, whose authentic message is to love one another. This is meant, however, to cite examples of the consequences of literally interpreting a text without considering fact, scientific or otherwise. The Bible is meant to be a religious and moral guide. It has no credibility the scientific community, and it only hinders progressive scientific thought,
Sunny Petzinger is a freshman in the School of International Service.
