Letters To The Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

August 25, 2005

Wondrous world isn't the result of any `design'

Thanks to years of experience offering the general public looks through my telescope at the moon, planets and stars, I think I understand where the intelligent designers are coming from ("Frist backs teaching of intelligent design," Aug. 20).

Reacting to the breathtaking beauty of what they have glimpsed, occasionally a looker will turn to me and ask, "Don't you agree, only God could have created such a thing?"

Being a nonbeliever and wishing to avoid controversy, I usually reply, "I'll take the Fifth Amendment on that."

While the doctrinaire intelligent designers' explanation of the wonders of nature is couched in much more sophisticated language than my happenstance lookers, I believe they have much in common.

Both are expressing a subjective emotional reaction upon witnessing the awesome beauty of our universe. Neither can produce the slightest objective evidence for their theistic conclusions.

I have the same emotional reactions that they do, but they don't lead me to the same conclusion.

I know that in the whole history of science, no problem has ever required a theistic explanation, and I see no reason to start evoking one now. In fact, scientific progress has been characterized by a struggle against supernaturalism.

As far as I'm concerned, the real question - whether it concerns a symphony, a flower, a significant other, a complex microbe or a star-filled sky - is: What is this emotion we humans call beauty?

Herman M. Heyn

Baltimore

How does Bush think flu virus mutates?

It is interesting that President Bush is reading a book about influenza epidemics. And surely he is briefed on occasion about the progress of the new and deadly flu strain making its way across Asia.

When the experts in the room express concern that the disease could further mutate to become capable of human-to-human transmission, does the president remind them that evolution is just a theory?

Charles F. Schafer III

Baltimore

`Intelligent design' requires blind faith

It seems that most of the debate about evolution vs. "intelligent design" is actually a debate between people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible and atheists ("Frist backs teaching of intelligent design," Aug. 20).

But if you are not bound by a literal interpretation of the Bible, it is possible to believe that the "intelligent designer" is using evolution as one of His or Her methods.

The scientific method begins with the observation of phenomena. So when a person considers the apparent complexity and order of the universe, it is not unreasonable to form a hypothesis that there is a designer.

But if you are being intellectually honest, you must admit that until you follow through with the next step in the scientific method, which is experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, you are operating in the world of blind faith.

So what do we teach our children?

I vote that we teach them to have a truly open mind and to practice honesty in all their intellectual endeavors.

Mike Columbus

Madonna

No proof evolution gave rise to life

The Sun's article "Harvard's new mission: Find out how life began" (Aug. 21) focuses on a study whose purpose, I assume, is to find out how the original material for the universe came into being, and then evolved (somehow, some way) into what we see today.

Good luck to Harvard on this one. How are its researchers going to show that something comes out of nothing?

There is only one explanation for this process, and it is so obvious that everyone deep down really knows what it is.

And if you think that this can be explained by evolution (somehow, some way), where's the proof?

Staf Greenwell

Baltimore

Design of Congress isn't so `intelligent'

If we arrived via "intelligent design," why do we now have the current Congress and administration?

G. M. Naul

Chestertown

Iraq's ethnic strife an obvious obstacle

Two observations regarding U.S. involvement in Iraq's constitutional process ("Sunnis threaten draft constitution," Aug. 24):

The division between Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites existed long before we invaded Iraq and should have been easy to anticipate as a stumbling block toward a unified, democratic Iraq. The U.S. government needs to determine if it failed to address these issues for the past 2 1/2 years or if these issues are simply insurmountable.

If the U.S. government has a vested interest in the success of the Iraqi government, it might want to begin setting a better example.

The minority Democrats (i.e., the Sunnis) need to be more than just a roadblock while the Republicans (i.e., the Shiites) need to learn the value of compromise rather than jamming their agenda down the minority's throats.

If our government cannot set a better example for fledgling democracies, what chance does the Iraqi government have of unifying Iraq?

Patrick Pearce

Preston

Mother of Marine always faithful

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.