Letters
to the editor
Sorority member resents accusations
I
am writing this letter in regards to the
article by Jill Thomsen in the On-line Forty-Niner
last Thursday, titled, “Catching Cheaters
via the Internet.” I want to know where
she got her sources to accurately accuse
fraternities and sororities of using each
others’ papers. “This deters community papers,
such as those used by some fraternities
and sororities.” It seems like when there
is no one else to put the blame on, it gets
pinned on the Greek system. Has Thomsen
ever been in a Greek organization? How does
she know that we use each others’ papers?
Being in a sorority for the past four years,
I know that we do not do turn each others’
papers in. The sorority and all of Panhellenic
Council emphasizes academic excellence and
we strive to maintain the highest GPA among
women at Cal State Long Beach. I would only
hope that in the future you can accurately
quote your sources before you accuse the
Greek organizations of plagiarism.
—
Lauren Thompson,
public relations major,
member of Delta Gamma sorority
Existence
of designer disputed
Barlas
Esin’s “Argument for the Existence of God,”
is a nicely written exposition of the argument
by design. He argues that the eye’s design
is so perfect that it would have to have
had an intelligent designer.
Unfortunately for the intelligent
design argument, the eye, or at least the
mammal eye, is far from perfectly designed.
In fact, it seems to be wired backwards.
The optical nerve comes through the retina
and spreads its network of nerves across
the very surface that detects light, whereas
a more intelligent design would have the
nerves come in from behind the retina. This
design is analogous to a movie camera where
the wiring enters the camera between the
lens and the unexposed film. The wires then
must cross the path of the light to snake
around the film to provide power to the
components in the camera. The wires could
be small enough that light gets through,
but such a design certainly complicates
the wiring, creates blind spots on the film,
and limits resolution.
No intelligent designer would design
a camera this way, so why would an intelligent
designer design such an eye? If the eye
has evolved through random mutation over
time, it must build upon a nerve-wiring
scheme that is already in place. Evolution,
since it has no mechanism for planning ahead,
cannot back up and spend millions of years
rewiring an organism so that down the road
sometime it can produce more intelligent
designs. No, it must improve upon what is
already there. That’s why mammals are stuck
with a very functional but far from perfect
eye with blind spots, detachable retinas,
a larger retina than seems necessary and
a location that is on the opposite side
of the head from the primary visual cortex.
Richard Dawkins’ book, “Climbing Mount Improbable”
provides a beautifully written, accessible
account of how complexity can evolve without
a designer. George Williams’ book, “The
Pony Fish’s Glow” gives a rather amusing
account of the poorly designed male reproductive
system.
—
Kent Richmond,
English
|
