When Chelsea Clinton comes on campus with a new and modern look, the moderns all say "plastic surgery." Which sorority girl bothered to ask Chelsea what was the deal behind the new look? How did Chelsea, a history major, get resurrected from the IHUM dead into a sorority house savior?

Does religion offer the answer to this puzzling question? The resurrection of the Islamic prophet Mohammad into Jerusalem and back again into Saudia Arabia is a tenet of Islamic faith. When Demi Moore appeared transformed when she appeared in the movie "Charlie's Angels," the moderns all said "plastic surgery," but interviews with Demi Moore reveal that she said that she has no surgery scars. If you take a look at pictures of Demi Moore in her G.I. Jane role, you will see that her facial bone structure has been completely altered and changed when you compare these pictures with Demi Moore in the present. Science does not have an answer to this type of transformation if "plastic surgery" is not involved. Let us say that the religions of the past and the religion of the present are not perfectly aligned in the masculine God past, but that does not mean that the monkey is not evolving into a better alignment with a force greater than oneself.

Could Collins have kept his job if had not found Jesus ? Its no wonder theres a shortage of science teachers. How discouraging to have to be restricted by a book that includes a story of a manmade boat that held two of each species ! Even Polar Bears in a hostile climate. How can we expect to advance scientifically with the bondage of religion ?

I appreciate Caitlin Mueller’s decision, despite her professed “personal inclination towards atheism,” to write an article on the relationship between religion and modern society. As I am unfamiliar with Francis Collins and his views, I have no comment on that part of Mueller’s article which addresses his pending visit. I must admit, however, to being somewhat disappointed at the superficiality of Mueller’s general discussion of religion and modern society. She seems to have started off with the presumption that religion is antithetical to modernity and then based her definitions of religion and modernity upon this very presumption. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that she throws around a lot of loaded words without clarifying what she intends by their use (e.g., "faith", "religion", "modernization", etc.).
In short, I find Mueller’s treatment of the relationship between religion and modern society to be more or less in line with the attitude of many Stanford students towards religion: while Stanford students are usually some of the most insatiably inquisitive students I have ever encountered, they are all too often satisfied with simplistic and caricaturish understandings of religion.
I do not think that one needs to feel a personal attraction to religion to find it an interesting topic for study. Is it not enough that throughout history (as well as in the modern day) religion has been a profoundly influential force, impacting culture, politics, and ideology? I would challenge Stanford students to move past superficiality of the kind demonstrated in Mueller's article and to study religion with the same relentless curiosity that has lifted them to such high academic achievement thus far.