My wife and I, both transplanted Texans in Hoosierland, recently had the opportunity to visit the Holy Land (if you listen to the Irish faithful) of college football to witness firsthand the Notre Dame experience. While we couldn't be at the Army/TCU game we did manage to mingle with 81,175 Irish fans while proudly wearing our TCU colors.
I am proud to report that I received many favorable comments about TCU throughout the day. Comments ranged from "I think this is the first TCU person I have ever seen in this stadium!". I had to correct him and advise that the Irish squeaked by the Frogs 21-7 in their stadium in 71. Some guy in a leprechaun outfit flashed the Frog Sign at us and said he started out at TCU (he apparently had to transfer somewhere he could make his grades). Another person asked, "Weren't you guys in the top 10 last year?". I couldn't resist this one as I said, "We sure were, we were ranked just one spot above Notre Dame in the Coaches Poll." He even tried to dispute this until his buddy showed him the Irish Game Day program that had the prior year's rankings (very enjoyable!). I even ran into another TCU grad on the bus to the stadium he was shocked to see a fellow Frog so far from home.
I have to say that Notre Dame Stadium was a bit of a disappointment. For a program that has its own TV network, no conference members to share money with and almost twice the seating capacity of ACS; the place was a bit of a dump! No jumbotron. Since they enlarged it, you can't see Touchdown Jesus from the stadium anymore and you sit on splintered one by fours that have been around since the days of the Gipper apparently (no wonder they can pack in over 80,000). Worst of all, not a single score from the TCU game was ever announced! However, it was a beautiful Midwest fall day with the leaves turning on a classically beautiful campus with lots of heritage. And somewhere conspicuously placed in the hallowed halls of Notre Dame Stadium sits a TCU logo for all to see. I can't say who or where it may have come from, but it sure spruced up the old place!
Robert Fillman '74
About that "C"
Everyday we see evidence that people who view the world through a "Christian" lense appear to ignore the wonderful diversity of the world. The TCU I attended in the early 1970s was not full of students trying to place others into religious categories. There were Jews, Muslims, and atheists on our campus in 1974. In my four years there, I do not recall one time when someone pigeonholed me as "Christian." In fact, I do not recall ever being among an exclusively Christian group. Such is the goal of education: to become involved in the culture of the world, not to be a part of an exclusive limited group who see some sort of moral superiority in their choice of each other as friends.
In the Fall 2006 TCU Magazine appeared a letter from a man who told the story about his decision not to steal a load of building materials, and how the young man who would have been responsible for the theft was greatful for the show of "Christianity" when the merchandise was returned. So being honest is an exclusive trait of Christianity? Religious bigotry is the reason we have wars in the Mid-east and increasingly polarized citizens in our country. What the man did was not defined by Christianity: what he did was to follow his moral compass. Morals are set everyday by parents who are Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, Hindus and Buddist. To assume that morals are exclusively Christian is insulting and ignores the diverse character of our world and our university.
The "C" in TCU is part of the institution's heritage. I am proud to have attended a university that celebrated diversity and tolerace. But as much as TCU should remember its path from a small "Christian" college to a true univeristy, I pray that it never becomes the central definition of an institution that aspires to greatness.
Carl G. Shepherd '74
In reference to a letter in the last issue, “Helmets for soldiers,” I am seeing soldiers in my unit coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan with retrofits already in their helmets. As a full-time Army civilian and a part-time Army Reserve soldier stationed in Fort Worth, it concerns me anytime someone asks for money in the name of the military. Although this is a noble cause and the writer means well, I know that the military already has this project funded.
John A. Sorley '03
ID'd at last
I should have sent this when I received the Summer edition. I am sure that the 'vixen' on the left is Gloria McKibbian Enis ’58. She was dating Hunter at that time and the 'backside' looks as if it is she. I did enjoy Dave Brown's article —1957 was a LONG time ago.
Billie Graham Chaplowe '58
As a TCU alumnus and an Intelligent Design proponent, I was deeply disappointed by the misinformation in Prof. Grant’s article about Intelligent Design. He falsely claims that, “If one determines that something is the result of natural law, then Dembski’s filter precludes one’s talking about that as being of God’s intention or design.”
Dembski never argues that the products of law and/or chance are not designed. He only argues that design is not scientifically detectable in them. Likewise, Grant claims that “Behe’s designer comes into play only in those instances in which we have irreducible complexity.” No, Behe only says that irreducible complexity is empirical evidence of design. He never claims that biological systems lacking irreducible complexity are not designed. Prof. Grant commits a logical fallacy, because he wrongly thinks that the statement, “If a, then b,” implies “not a, therefore not b.” Prof. Grant is also confusing epistemology (detectability of design) with ontology (the existence of design).
Finally, Prof. Grant’s statement, “Intelligent design brings God down to being one force operating in nature among other forces” is balderdash. Most intelligent design advocates — including Dembski and Behe — believe no such thing.
Richard Weikart '80
History Professor and Chair, California State University
I found C. David Grant's article, Creation Controversy, both interesting and engaging. And, while I agree with his concluding comments, I think his article does not fully address the problem in the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate. Here's why.
Whether it be Evolution, Intelligent Design or Basketweaving, every systemized body of knowledge contains two things:
1. The Facts that describe the system and
2. The Epistemology, or philosophy, that bring coherence to the system.
Deep understanding comes from a thorough examination of the facts about the system AND from the philosophy which guides it.
My opinion is that Grant knows SOME of the facts of evolution and intelligent design, but he MISSED the philosophy that undergirds both of them.
Mainstream evolutionists assert that God is NEVER necessary to explain humanity's origins and therefore, a belief in God is not justifiable. Evolutionists assume that natural explanations, even if not completely understood at the present time, will eventually eradicate the need to appeal to a supernatural explanation - including God.
On the other hand, Christianity asserts that humanity REQUIRES the existence of a creator and assumes humankind was wonderfully made(Psalm 139:14).
See the difference? God is never required in one system, God is always required in the other. It's a difference in philosophies - the most difficult to overcome.
Thus, for Grant to state that. "...many thoughtful scientists and religious believers have held for decades, one can believe in God and accept the findings of science" may be true, it does not adequately address the issue.
The realm of science is exclusively the realm of nature. From this perspective, to inject supernatural interpretations from natural findings is not justifiable without reason to do so. A mainstream scientist with integrity, I argue, could never believe in God without empirical reasons, justified by repeatable experiments, peer review and quantifiable results and, only then, if God were the only possible explanation.
Similarly, a Christian with integrity to her faith could never deny the existence of God or even the possibility of it. She would necessarily reject all arguments that permit the denial of her most fundamental belief. One can not be a Christian and disbelieve in God.
Therefore, while the empirical finds of science may be compatible with Evolution and Christianity, their philosophical assumptions are mutually exclusive and can not be reconciled without changing the philosophy of one of them.
So, in my mind, while I agree with the points Grant makes, I don't think he fully appreciates the philosophical underpinnings of either side, thus, presenting a mischaracterization of both systems which leads people to believe that mainstream science and the supernatural can be reconciled - and they can not.
Thank you for a stimulating read
Roy Clemmons, Pastor,
Elgin Central Christian Church
I enjoyed your article on the creation controversy. Maybe there were two forms of creation. One called evolution guided by Intelligent Design over millennia interrupted by a preAdamic flood that prepared the way for an instantaneous creation over the week. In Genesis 6 it refers to the sons of God marrying the daughters of man. Maybe it was just those two cultures co-mingling.
George File '50
Twenty-five of 76 pages of the Fall 2006 The TCU Magazine were on sports. This huge emphasis on sports hardly seems the way to become a "World Class University."
Bill Wilson '81
In response to your did we overlook anyone question, I will submit the following.
Without a doubt Jim Swink is the best #23 TCU has enjoyed. However, in the honorable mention listings you failed to mention Greg Porter. He scored 177 points in football, led the team in scoring three years, finished as the seventh all-time career kicker in Southwest Conference history, finished asTCU's all-time career kicker-a record which held for approximately two decades, and held records for most field-goals in a game, season, and career. He aslo scored a game-winning touchdown against Oregon on his first collegiate play ( the only kicker in NCAA history to do that), was the first (possibly still the only) freshman (true freshman) to be awarded the TCU Davey O'Brien Fightn'est Frog Award, and also finished as the 2nd all time career scorer behind Jim Swink. He was also selected to Dave Campbell's All-Decade Team of the 70's, He accomplished these feats and others while trying to help the team during an era that won only 7 games in four years. I think that is worth honorable mention for the jersey number 23.
Greg Porter '83
It seems that the football and basketball teams of the 1969-1973 most have fallen out of the record books. Somewhere during that time period the Frogs won several SWC basketball championships. They had some great guards during those years that deserve recognition. On the football side, what happened to Norm "Boo" Bulaich '70? I didn't see him mentioned and he played for the Baltimore Colts and Miami Dolphins, I believe. Also, Steve Judy was a pretty good quarterback.
Steven P. Welty '73
I had to rub my eyes three times – no mention of Norman Bulaich in the Our All-time Numbers article? Surely this was an oversight and can be mentioned in your next addition. I am sure I am not the only one to bring this to the attention of Mr. Waters and Mr. Wright. Please take corrective action. Norm was a great one.
Larry McBryde '71
I love the magazine, but you obviously had a mind lapse when listing the top players with certain numbers. How could you leave out #23 Norm Bulaich '70? A legend at TCU, Mr. TCU, first round draft choice of the Baltimore Colts, Pro Bowl appearance,10 years in the NFL. You can leave out Ronnie Littleton, but not "Big Boo."
Paul Jones '73
Editor's note: While running back Norm "Boo" Bulaich (1966, 1968-69) was a first-round draft pick of the Baltimore Colts in 1970 and was a Super Bowl champion and one-time Pro Bowler, he never was a first-team All-Southwest Conference selection for the Frogs, nor did he lead the team in rushing any of his three seasons. For these reasons and the fact that Jim Swink made No. 23 immortal 10 years before Bulaich arrived on campus, "Boo" was not on our radar for All-Time Numbers. But clearly his legend is alive and well. Thanks for the great response.
Maybe Scott Ankrom should have been an honorable mention for # 5. I think he still holds the record for the longest pass completion in TCU history, to James Maness in '84.
Ricky Stone '89
Your All-Time Numbers story sure brought back a world of pleasant memories. I am confident a ton of time and research went into your final decisions regarding which names deserved to be listed and which ones didn't make the final cut.
I am not quarreling, but I can't believe the final decider was not in Memorial Stadium in 1959 when, late in the fourth quarter, Harry Moreland, No. 22, made his run. TCU 14, University of Texas 9.
Joe Hays '48
Thank you for recognizing me with number 92. When I reflect back to my playing years (1977-1980), I have mixed emotions. Our records reveal few wins and many losses. The losses were very disheartening but the will of each player every week was to bring TCU a victory. I credit my life success to three factors – God, my parents and TCU. My TCU experience has taught me that when you get knocked down, it's the character of the man on how fast he rises to his feet. TCU allowed me to receive a college degree, which in turn enabled me to serve in my chosen field – law enforcement.
For this I am truly blessed!
Jim Bayuk '81
We enjoyed your recent magazine article on Our All Time Numbers but wonder how on earth you left out baseball players Jim Busby, who had a fabulous TCU career, hitting .507 his senior year, and went on to play many years in the major leagues as a member of the famous Go-Go White Sox etc., also Carl Warwick, who set major league records with the St. Louis Cardinals as a seven hit pinch hitter in the World Series.
We have no quarrel with your selections, since many were our friends while we received our degrees at TCU, but the above two should have been included.
Ted '52 and Nancy Tally Reynolds '50
Ol' Jim Swink
Outstanding interview with my boyhood hero Jim Swink. He was truly one of the most exciting running backs in the history of college football. There might be one factual error though. If I am not mistaken, Sonny Gibbs was also on a Sports Illustrated cover when he was our quarterback in the early 60s.
Jim Shelton '65
Editor's note: You're right, Jim! Gibbs was on the Oct. 15, 1962 issue.