A phone rings. I tell my roommate, "Chuck, I'm going to be severely disappointed if this is an attractive blonde and not my pizza."
"Hello?" I answer.
It's not my pizza—worse yet, it's an attractive blonde.
All I really want is my Hungry Howie's pepperoni pizza and I'm stuck with this: an attractive blonde on the other end of the line. I struggle with an ethical dilemma. Can any male really hang up on an attractive blonde, even for a pizza?
Yes, yes he can. I did it. I hung up on the attractive blonde. Howie's might have called any moment proclaiming that my pizza was in the lobby and that I should pick it up. Still, an explanation for my irrational act — I was starving, I had just climbed up a mountain.
You see, I'd been waiting for my pizza for a long time.
I'd had time for a shower. I'd started some minimal Spanish homework. I even tried to write an article about the Bible-thumping creationists I saw on Hayden lawn a couple days ago.
It would have been somewhat kind to them, really. I don't blame them for knowing next to nothing about biology or evolution.
In reality, how many people can claim to have more than the slightest understanding of natural selection, beyond the cliché "survival of the fittest"?
Lawn evangelist Sister Pat certainly had little idea what was meant by the term and struggled to come up with a response. Technical detail is not her strong point.
She instead pointed out to me how it is impossible for feathers to evolve from scales. My reaction: huh?
She reminded me that people needed a reason to live — could Darwin provide this, she asked.
I couldn't honestly say yes.
What I could honestly say is that creationist writer Ken Ham will never write a fundamentally sound book on anything, let alone evolution. And this man was her source, not good ol' Darwin.
So back to my pizza. It was still MIA.
It's not like my order of a large pepperoni pizza was that complicated.
Did I mention I'd hung up on a cute blonde for this pizza and it still wasn't here?
Of course, it wouldn't seem so bad if blondes evolved from slime molds, as some of these creationist folk believe.
Any male here at ASU can tell you that if blondes can evolve from slime mold, there's no way he's getting rid of that moldy bread in his refrigerator and three-year-old mayonnaise.
I exaggerate creationist lack of evolutionary understanding, yes, but by only a little bit.
Let me say, however, that it is people like the lawn evangelists that want things like "Special Creation" and "Intelligent Design" taught in schools today (two theories of Christian creation couched in scientific terms).
If it were ever leaked to a high school biology class that mold grew into beautiful women think of the many more headaches mothers would have to endure. Think of how many loaves of sourdough or French bread they would rescue, after many months, from the damp recesses under their sons' beds.
We cannot let this happen.
I should not poke such fun at Sister Pat's ignorance, since she's out of her field when it comes to biology and readily admits it.
And I admit that I'm out of my league discussing religion — I can't even recall the order in which the six days of creation took place. Sister Pat's real reason to be here at ASU was not to teach biology, but rather to make students think.
About what, though, it's hard to say.
Moral teaching is the domain of the Bible — it was not written as a scientific journal.
Religion and science are two totally different and separate things. It is possible to believe in evolution and to still be religious. Most religions of the world (including Christianity) have no problem accepting scientific explanations. Back in 1996, the Pope himself acknowledged the existence of evolution in not so many words.
The quiet majority of rational Christians need to be heard and to drown out the rants of fundamentalists.
It was not too long ago that children in Lafayette, La. filled out petitions asking to be taught about the alternatives to evolution. It turns out these alternatives were really religious creationism in disguise and, fortunately, the school board turned down the request. This is not an isolated incident. It has happened before. Without stepping to far out on a limb, I'd bet we'll see it happen again.
Sister Pat is, by herself, mostly harmless. She might win a convert here and there, but by and large ASU students are immune to her indoctrinations. The general populace, for the most part, is immune to creationist "science" as well.
There is, however, a large body of pseudoscientists writing books about how evolution is collapsing (Scott Huse) or about how there are "explanatory filters" proving that mankind was designed by some creator (Bill Dembski). Note the prefix "pseudo" in front of the word "scientist," meaning their experiments and theories ignore some of the basic scientific principles in favor of religious ones.
Religion and science have two different purposes. Science can explain this world; religion can explain the next. Just remember to always keep things in perspective — including the fact that my pizza still isn't here.
North Noelck is a biology sophomore and pepperoni with butter crust fanatic. Reach him at north.noelck@asu.edu.
