Saturday Mailbox

SATURDAY MAILBOX

November 19, 2005

No quiet in evolution fight

I am surprised to see so much front-page space devoted to the bombast of a preacher with a diminished following ("God's not scorned, and all's quiet," Nov. 12).

I thought the human animal was finished with superstition, magical thinking and "the-world-is-flat" theories. But the Rev. Pat Robertson keeps foot-stomping that if we don't do things his way, God will teach us a lesson. And he keeps getting press.

Here's a thought: America has been through unprecedented hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, fires and a terrorist attack in the five years since President Bush came to power. We are trillions of dollars in debt and a majority of us have lost faith in the president.

Our country is in a far sorrier state than it was five years ago.

Is God teaching us a lesson because conservative activist judges stopped the vote recount and made Mr. Bush president and thereby endangered the Constitution?

Is God teaching us a lesson because Bush then went on to lie to his country and took us into a war where we have lost thousands of God's children (American and Iraqi) and there is no end in sight?

Reverend Roberston has interpreted this sacred mystery we call God as a belligerent Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy all rolled into one.

Of course "all's quiet" in Dover, Pa. Are we surprised?

Elizabeth Keeling Carter

Baltimore

I am a teacher in a private school and I am proud to bring my view of creationism into my classroom.

The Theory of Evolution simply does not answer all the questions that my students have. Advocates of Darwinism consistently fail to debate creationism using the science they claim to be defending. Instead, they rely on their misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Their misunderstanding of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is truly at the heart of this issue.

And are these scientists aware that Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam are a part of the social studies curriculum in most public schools?

A science class unit on Darwinism might last two weeks. I fail to see why someone would be so opposed to a one-day or two-day discussion challenging a theory.

In our social studies classrooms, children are encouraged to question, challenge and support all kinds of theories such as isolationism, capitalism, communism and conservatism, just to name a few. Why can't our science community encourage this same form of free and open-minded thinking?

And now, the evolutionists are actually advocating the withholding of information - in a form of scientific censorship.

The National Academy of Sciences has threatened to prevent the Kansas school board from using its copyrighted material. That almost sounds like a spoiled child taking his ball home because the other kids were not playing by his rules.

And, in the end, the students will suffer.

If the National Academy of Sciences really cared about education, it would send more material to counter the "evils" of creationism.

Evolutionists will continue to lose credibility because they refuse to defend their theory using science or common sense.

Brian K. Powell

Abingdon

The Sun editorialized that, "Despite objections by major science groups, the Kansas Board of Education voted, 6-4, to weaken science standards by declaring that high school students study doubts about evolution" ("Evolutionary," editorial, Nov. 10).

But how does studying doubts about a theory "weaken" the search for truth?

When Copernicus had doubts about an Earth-centered universe, did that weaken science? When Einstein had doubts about the nature of time, did that weaken science?

In Darwinian scientific circles, acknowledging even the idea or the possibility of a creator/designer has become taboo, as has questioning the basic tenets of evolutionary theory itself. Such taboos suggest that today's Darwinism has more similarities to primitive religion than to open-minded, open-ended science.

What studying doubts about evolution does, in fact, weaken is the hold of irrational evolutionist dogma on the minds of students, and that's a good thing.

We want the truth, don't we?

Robert Bowie Johnson Jr.

Annapolis

It is not necessary to write a long treatise, let alone a book, to prove or disprove the intelligent design hypothesis. It can be dispensed with in one paragraph.

If you can understand what's wrong with either of the statements, "This sentence is false" or "I always lie," you should be able to see why intelligent design is untenable.

Intelligent design is proposed by people who feel that the complexities of our world requires a higher intelligence as a designer - i.e., "Only a watchmaker can create a watch." Just to make them happy, let's call the higher intelligence "God."

God must therefore be more complex than anything else that exists. But, oops, that means that a higher intelligence must exist which designed and created God. And so on, ad infinitum.

Note that each new god is different than those preceding him/her/it.

So which God does one worship?

Eugene Primoff

Greensboro

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.