Follow-up

Damn. Someone beat me too it. Not hard, I only now got frustrated enough with one thing [practicing] to want to finish writing. They did a better job than I would have, very concise. I would have been much more harsh and very verbose. That is probably why I never got around to finishing it; I would have put alot of work into it. Dustin Ellenberger makes many of the same points I had, with the exception of pointing out the lack of knowledge of the constitution that the editor had. Here's what Dustin wrote:

Criticizing the president

Dear Editor, Let’s not forget one glaring piece of information that a Scroll writer forgot to mention in her editorial about criticizing the president: Bush ran for president. We didn’t just simply appoint him. It is our job as conscientious Americans to wonder what our leader is doing. I didn’t ask for this war in Iraq. Remember, we didn’t get invaded or attacked by Iraq. Did we get attacked by people who may have had connections to some other people that happened to live in Iraq? That’s the great debate, isn’t it? So before someone starts quoting (and misinterpreting) the 12th Article of Faith, let’s remember that No Child Left Behind was his idea and so was his Social Security plan and therefore criticism is likely to follow. Does Bush get bashed? Sure he does, but he is supposed to be our leader, someone the entire world looks at for an example of what the United States is about. So while most of the media attention is sensationalism and over-analysis, Bush is ultimately responsible for America and needs to be held accountable for his actions just like every other citizen. So let’s not cry for President Bush; after all he is a grown up who did beg for votes two different times, or did someone forget that?

Dustin Ellenberger a senior from Federal Way, Wash.

I'm going to use word to blog from now on. Anyways, as I read the editorials one written by a professor here jumped out at me. It was on ID. Here:

Intelligent design
Dear Editor,
While the phrase “intelligent design” may be naturally appealing, Latter-day Saints need to be aware of the underlying assumptions that are not supported by the Church.
Foremost is that the earth was created in a very short period of time a few thousand years ago.
This position, otherwise known as “creationism,” has never been advocated by the Church. Another assumption in Idaho is that evolution is false. This position is also not supported in official Church statements.
The BYU Library Packet on Evolution represents the official positions of the Church as given in First Presidency Statements. It is available online via the David O. McKay Library, under “Research Guides” and “Geology.” A careful reading shows that the details of the origin of Adam and Eve’s bodies has never been revealed and is not addressed by the First Presidency. They make no statement concerning evolution of plants and animals and simply state the obvious, that evolution is a “theory of men.” They do not say it is false.
While some General Authorities over the years have made statements opposing evolution, others have supported it. There is no unanimity among the General Authorities past or present, and so we should rely only on the official First Presidency Statements, which are neutral.
Science does not and cannot address the existence of God (or a creator) because that issue is outside the realm of objective observation, testing and experiment.
Therefore “intelligent design” is not science and does not belong in the public science classroom.
Robert ClaytonBYU-Idaho professor Geology Dept.

I’ll try to find some time to check out that pamphlet. Link

Gah, it posted poorly from Word. I can't seem to get the layout to do what I want. The link is there, just view it.