Letters To The Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

December 27, 2004

Many scientists still skeptical about evolution

The article "Evolution or Design?" (Dec. 19) is typical of the distortion of the truth the left promotes as soon as its sacred cow, evolution, is attacked.

The problem does not necessarily arise from a disagreement between scientists and conservative Christians, as the authors would have us believe. There is, in fact, a significant disagreement among qualified scientists as to the feasibility of the theory of evolution.

Indeed, to believe that simple cells have, in the course of about 1 billion years, accidentally combined to form something as complex as a human being is ludicrous.

Evolution is a slow, lugubrious process based on the variability and fertility inherent in animals. To believe that the trillions and trillions of decisions required to form a human being were made by this slow process is absurd.

The non-scientists who worship at the altar of scientific opinion should do more research.

Jim Kniss

Aberdeen

Ignoring creationism promotes atheism

Almost 60 years ago, in a small Catholic grammar school in New Jersey, I learned that true science and true religion are never in conflict ("Evolution or Design?" Dec. 19).

I learned that the six days of creation were six "periods of time," certainly not of 24 hours. I learned that evolution was the method that the Creator choose to develop the Earth.

The teaching of Darwinism without "design" is a fallacious affront to the believers of most conventional religions.

It supports the establishment of one religion - that of atheism - even though the First Amendment prevents the support of a single religion by the government.

Richard Tatlow

Marriottsville

Put end to teaching of pseudoscience

The taxpayers and the students will be the big losers from the Dover, Pa., school board's decision to "balance" evolutionary science with "intelligent design" pseudoscience ("Evolution or Design?" Dec. 19).

This fight is all because Christian fundamentalists worry that their children may accept evolution and then lose their faith and their souls. But the government should not get involved in such theological controversies.

"Intelligent design" is just the latest attempt to disguise religion as science so public schools can be used to promote sectarian belief.

It fits the classic definition of pseudoscience - as something that tries to look like science but in fact is not.

If students had more than the reported "one day" of evolution instruction that Dover's schools provide, they might see through this bogus end run around the Constitution.

In any case, I hope that Dover taxpayers will revolt before too much money is wasted defending against the inevitable lawsuit, and demand a school board with more common sense - or more education.

Douglas E. McNeil

Baltimore

Subject creationism to critical evaluation

An enlightened, liberal education should include an exposure to diverse views and beliefs. This does not imply that every view needs to be examined. However, when a view or belief takes on a "critical mass," regardless of its veracity, it is time to give it some exposure.

Creationism and intelligent design are two views that need exposure to the sunlight ("Evolution or Design," Dec. 19).

I think educators should spend a little class time describing, in an unbiased manner, these "theories," including their history of development, the objectives of those primarily responsible for their promotion, and the critiques offered by the mainstream scientific community.

This combination civics and science lesson could be quite mind-expanding.

Fred Lobbin

Columbia

Circular reasoning proves very little

"Intelligent design" advocates attempt to prove intelligent design with the existence of God, and the existence of God on the basis of intelligent design ("Evolution or Design?" Dec. 19).

This circular reasoning proves nothing.

Those who want intelligent design taught in school as a theory should be willing to have students taught that the existence of God is also merely a theory.

Joseph Davidson

Columbia

The rich create both wealth and waste

I take issue with the letter "Rich people create wealth for everyone" (Dec. 17), which answered an earlier letter that argued that "for one person to become obscenely rich, thousands must suffer" ("Taxing consumption penalizes the poor," Dec. 9)

Both claims are incomplete. Here is a history of the world in two sentences: The people who quit the centuries-old communal farm to become merchants eventually bought the farm, hired the former collective owners and concentrated wealth to compete with counterparts elsewhere. Wars between such powers gave rise to a permanent military economy until everything ends in world war and/or ecocide.

Enterprising people create useful wealth up to a point.

Past that point, many profit off the most colossal waste of wealth imaginable: billions spent on destruction while millions go jobless, hungry, uneducated, homeless and sick.

Richard Ochs

Baltimore

Strike back hard to win war in Iraq

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.