To the Editor:

In response to (Michael) Ives’ poorly written (letter), I would like to shed light on the subject he chose to “argue” on, for lack of a better word.

I am having trouble in seeing Mr. Ives point on religion. Obviously he denounces atheism, and I would assume he does not believe in the evolutionary theory. What he fails to distinguish is the difference between these two theories, at least in his article, he groups the two theories in the same category, which is not a sound position since these two believes differ greatly.

He makes an analogy that portrays these two beliefs to have no moral substance, that atheists and evolutionists really don’t care at all about life or purpose.

I would like to know if Mr. Ives was aware that one can believe in a purpose in life and have moral standards without a monotheistic point of view. He is so busy trash talking these two theories that he forgets to make an argument for himself.

I can respect his view, but without some sort of basis of an argument, a sound reason why he thinks he is right, I see no reason in giving his point of view the time of day. He simply makes a stereotype of two theories that he is obviously not educated of and then says that they are wrong and he is right. If one believes in a certain religion, then fine, but if one expects to push his/her point of view on others, you must have some sort of argument, not simply a unsupported statement.

I suggest to Mr. Ives that before pushing his view on others and denouncing other views, he should have an understanding of the views he rejects and come with some sort of basis on why and what he believes in.

It’s one thing to believe in a certain religion, but it is another thing to denounce others with such an ignorant and unknowledgeable stance.

Matt Skroch

Junior

Biology