The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 75, No. 7, Ed. 1 Friday, October 2, 1987 Page: 2 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Friday, October 2,1987
THRESHER Opinion
A better place
to speak
Stephen J. Gould delivered a Presidential lecture on Friday that was
both stimulating and controversial, yet it is unfortunate that the Rice
Memorial Center's Grand Hall could not hold all the students who
wished to see the eminent biologist.
Not only did students, faculty, and community members fill the
regular seating in the Grand Hall, but closed-out students packed the
outer lobby as well, most sitting on the floor and all unable to see Gould
and the two slide shows integral to his presentation. Many other
frustrated students simply decided to leave after they were stopped at
the door of the filled hall.
Though Gould may have gone overboard when he announced that the
RMC is the worst piece of architecture he has ever spoken in, the
situation did inconvenience many people and taint the whole speech.
Furthermore, the overflowing RMC probably violated fire codes appli-
cable to the building.
Unfortunately, there is no better indoor campus location to host a
speaker. Crowding will continue to be a problem for any extremely
popular speaker. The accomodations will continue to give speakers a
negative impression of Rice.
If the Student Association manages to get a Presidential candidate to
speak here, as SA President Kevin Gass is attempting to arrange, then
far more people attempting to get into the RMC would cause an
especially bad situation, and could even be dangerous.
Fortunately, however, a solution may be forthcoming. A new campus
building, designed to house the Shepherd School of Music, is in its
planning stages.
The plans for the building have not been made public, but the building
is supposed to house a concert hall. We trust that the university will be
sensible enough to ensure that the building's hall is suitable for large
events such as the Gould speech.
Can history repeat
in Rice's sport?
When network television showed the College Bowl (between 1959
and 1970), Rice often dominated the game. The academic competition
now is making a television comeback—though on the Disney channel
Sunday afternoons.
The Rice teams of the past sometimes created a academic dynasty.
Richard Reid, producer of this year's College Bowl, researched old
scores last week and found the 1966 Rice team held all-time scoring
records, set in a455-75 crushing of Cal State and a450-5 embarassment
of the University of Chattanooga. The Rice foursome was forced to
retire after this match, for they had won too many games.
This year, LSU represents our region among the sixteen College
Bowl finalists; the Rice team finished second to them last spring.
Maybe this year's Rice squad, soon to be selected through intramural
competitions, will bring back our success in "the varsity sport of the
mind."
It may be the only bowl game we can win.
—Mike Raphael
(fvw
£
Bork-bashers have it wrong
When it comes to criticizing Judge
Robert Bork, everyone wants to get
into the act. It's like a carnival game:
Judge the Judge, and Win a Place in
History. The startling truth, which
most voters don't realize and most
politicians won't admit, is that Robert
Bork holds too strongly to the prin-
ciples of the Court and understands
them too well for modern politics. He
is, in a word, too smart to win popular
support.
Critics have portrayed Bork as an
ultraconservative crusader. But if,
indeed, Bork has a crusade, it is origi-
nalism, the idea that the Court should
interpret the Constitution as its writ-
ers intended. The Court has become in
many ways a maker, rather than an
interpreter, of the law; Justice Bork,
clearly, would favor the Court's role
as interpreter.
SPANNING THE HEDGES
by Spencer Greene
When Bork says that he disagrees
with the landmark Roe v. Wade abor-
tion case on constitutional grounds,
he means exactly that. He has not said
he is against abortion, merely that he
does not find the legal principle the
case was based on espoused in the
Constitution. The legal question he
raises is certainly open to debate, for
the Constitution's guarantee of pri-
vacy, if there is one, is quite vague.
The right to legal abortion must
certainly be preserved—but to pre-
serve it solely on the basis of the
opinions of a half-dozen aging judges
transgresses against our democratic
ideal. The legislative branch of gov-
ernment, unquestionably, must take
the responsibility for making the law
more clear. If this means a Constitu-
tional amendment guaranteeing the
right to privacy, or even a rewrite of
the Constitution as many legal schol-
ars suggest, so be it.
Bork has placed himself squarely
in the camp of the interpretivists.
Why, then, do critics harp so on his
supposed (butundemonstrated) right-
wing fanaticism, when his academic
writing, judicial record and recent
testimony show a careful regard for
the law? O the perils of facing the
Senate Judiciary Committee during
an election year!
Bork's critics, unlike Robert Bork
see Bork's, page 5
Writer: Gould neglects God
To the editor:
As I sat through Stephen Jay
Gould's talk, it occurred to me that the
reason many people do not even con-
Yumwm
WHmKNEfyt'
BLESS WE., FKMER,
m tfTHV
BUES6WE/WWER,F0R
"mEFOUjCMN& MISffAK&S
HANfcEEEH WDt-
sider creation by God as a possible
theory is because miracles are as-
sumed to be impossible.
A miracle is not something accom-
plished by superhuman effort but
rather it is something beyond any
human effort. Clearly, creation by
God would be a miracle.
Before one dismisses miracles as
not being relevant in the twentieth
century one ought to consider a piece
of literature that talks extensively
about it—the Bible. The credentials
of the Bible as a historical document
are compelling.
Josh McDowell, in his book "Evi-
dence that demands a Verdict," ap-
plies certain standard tests for the
reliability and accuracy of a piece of
literature to the Bible and compares
the historical accuracy of the Bible to
classical literature. McDowell con-
cludes by saying that if one discards
the Bible as being unreliable one must
discard almost all literature or anti-
quity. If such a historically reliable
piece of literature talks about miracle,
one ought not discount miracles with-
out due investigation.
The miraculous is fundamental to
Christianity and Christianity di-
vorced from the miraculous becomes
a code book of ethics and traditions of
men. Miracles are found all through
the Bible; I will focus on the miracle
ministry of Jesus Christ. Many of the
THRESHING IT OUT
letters to the editor
miracles Jesus performed were before
the public for open scrutiny.
When Jesus raised up Lazarus
from the dead, His adversaries did not
deny the miracle but rather sought to
kill Him before all men believed in
Him. Both friends and foes alike at-
tested to His ability to perform mir-
acles; His foes only questioned the
source of His power. Jesus make it
clear that God was His source. If His
miracles were counterfeit they would
not have withstood the scrutiny of His
Jewish contemporaries. The greatest
miracle of all was, of course, the
physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Miracles are often discournted
because they cannot be explained by
natural laws. Rather than decide a
priori that miracles are impossible
one ought to examine the evidence
and testimonies of miracles—not
only those that were performed 2000
years ago but those that are performed
today.
Miracles are a fact and are real.
Hence, if God can raise people from
the dead he could (and did) have
spoken the world into existence as
described in Genesis.
Gould made a statement to the ef-
see Gould, page 3
I
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Raphael, Michael J. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 75, No. 7, Ed. 1 Friday, October 2, 1987, newspaper, October 2, 1987; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245673/m1/2/: accessed June 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.