More Fun Letters to the Editor

[Surlethe]

alinka I:

Letter: A question of faith
MARK COVAULT - 2614 N. Lyn-Mar

A recent guest column titled "Intelligent design - Where is the evidence?" by Mark Darrall brought out my frustration with this whole business of evolution being treated as scientific fact. What it really should be called is "scientific faith." It requires more faith to believe in some of these theories of evolution - age of our universe and predating dinosaurs to millions of years ago, etc. - than to believe that an intelligent designer (God) created our universe and existence. The scientists can only postulate theories, but to perpetuate to the great masses that it is beyond a doubt is misleading and wrong.

Mr. Darrall mentions in his article that he doesn't object to the open discussion of intelligent design in the classroom, but feels that any discussions should be kept in proper context and include examination of the evidence. That would be great if creationists were allowed to discuss the evidence with resources like the Bible, which we are excluded from using and discussing in our public classrooms today.

His final point was that educational policy should be set by the public and not by a particular ideology. I whole-heartedly agree with him on this point. The majority of our country believe in a Creator God, but yet a minority ideology (evolution believers) is determining what can be discussed in our classrooms today.

zlinkz II

Letter: Intelligent design
KEVIN N. WINGATE - Muncie

I have been following the evolution-creation debate on the editorial page, and much of what I have read is either wrong or irrational.

We have been given examples of microevolution, such as people getting taller and microbial pathogens becoming resistant to previously effective antibiotics. The mistake is in extrapolating the evidence to account for microevolution, the supposed cause of species diversification.

No scientist, whether evolutionist or creationist, disputes that microevolution occurs. However, the processes involved are far from what is necessary to bring about Darwinian evolution. There is no proof that natural selection, operating through random mutations, created all of the diverse forms of life on earth.

Is the purpose of science to discover the truth about natural phenomena, or is the purpose to figure out some way to explain the universe on a purely naturalistic basis? Must the universe necessarily have a naturalistic explanation? Is it proper for a scientist to decide beforehand what the natural world is allowed to reveal? If a scientist concludes, on the basis of scientific data and analysis, that the natural world could not have come into being without an Intelligent Designer, why should he be branded as unscientific?

While intelligent design (ID) has not matured to the point of being a scientific theory (one with testable assertions and falsifiable predictions), it is not true that there is no evidence to support ID. The scientific support for a Creator's direct involvement in bringing the universe and life into existence is overwhelming. So, too, are the problems for biological evolution.

Lastly, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that our nation is at risk of becoming another Iran if students in public schools are exposed to a viewpoint that happens to be more sensible and scientifically valid than the one currently being taught.

Finally, my reply. I'll be sending it in later tonight or tomorrow morning:

Last Saturdy (22 October, 2005), I could not help but notice two letters published side-by-side attacking science and rational thinking. The two letters-writers base their positions on equivocations, misunderstandings, false and dishonest misrepresentations of the theory of evolution, and blatant ignorance of the scientific method, naturalistic philosophy, and parsimony.

Apparently, Mr. Wingate is unable to understand the fact there is no functional difference between so-called “microevolution” and “macroevolution”. The distinction is a false one creationists have drawn to generalize, oversimplify, and thereby dishonestly discredit the theory of evolution. Furthermore, Mr. Covault fails to recognize observations do not require faith; neither do tested inferences from those observations. Belief in a creator does require faith; but science, which is grounded in observation, does not: thus, to teach faith in a science classroom is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state and an insult to intellectually honest people everywhere.

Moreover, the assumptions required for creationism far outweigh those required for evolution: evolution requires no assumptions beyond those required for everyday living: namely, the assumption one’s senses are correct; however, creationism necessitates an inscrutable, omnipotent creator, in addition to the assumptions required for evolution. Such a theory violates parsimony, even assuming creationism adequately describes the world around us. Finally, both Mr. Covault and Mr. Wingate clearly have no idea what the scientific method is.

I suggest they both return to basic high school science classes until they grasp logic, parsimony, and the scientific method, and then comment upon subjects involving those topics: believing in creationism is fine, but thinking creationism is scientifically verifiable and valid demonstrates ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

Thoughts? These letters, an editorial (which I posted in Venting), and the Esquire article have me about to fly off the handle at the next bit of idiocy or incompetence I see.

[Kettch]

I think the last paragraph is a little too harsh. You'll loose readers by attacking them directly, especially because some of those who you want to convert to your side will be holding some of these beliefs in part, & by attacking them, not just their ideas, you're attacking the reader.

[Zero]

I disagree, with Kettch, actually. I think the response was quite well done. Your suggestion isn't openly offensive, you're merely suggesting that the fellow doesn't know all the facts. You may actually want to add in a bit to the reader, suggesting that he himself get all of the facts before deciding, instead of becoming part of some sensationalist bullshit.

[UCBooties]

I am torn, I think the last paragraph has worth, but many editors would choose not to post somthing so openly targeted and inflamitory towards specific readers. It might be beneficial to hedge your bets for a better chance at getting published at all. Sound writing none the less.

[Metatwaddle]

Wow, nice letter. I like the sentence about micro- and macroevolution being an arbitrary distinction made by creationists - very incisive. I don't understand why you wrote that "believing in creationism is fine," though, when it's clearly not what you think. There's a jarring contrast between the beginning of the sentence (go back to high school bio) and the conciliatory middle (believing in creationism is fine). Then again, maybe I'm the only one who objects to the conciliatory nature of that bit, and I should remember that newspaper letters aren't really supposed to involve flamethrowers.

On the technical side, I must point out that you misspelled Saturday (second word of the letter) and "letters-writers" should be "letter-writers" (second sentence).

[mr friendly guy]

. I don't understand why you wrote that "believing in creationism is fine," though, when it's clearly not what you think.

I think he means Creationists are entitled to their beliefs, but not the right to have it taught in the classroom (because it violates separation of Church and State), especially not as a science (because its not).

[Zadius]

Nice letter. I don't think it's possible to be too harsh, especially when speaking with someone like Mark Covault who thinks the Bible should be allowed into the classroom as evidence for Creationism.

Let us know if it gets published, and, subsequently, if there are any responses too it. I'd be interested in what the responses might be.

[Surlethe]

. I don't understand why you wrote that "believing in creationism is fine," though, when it's clearly not what you think.

I think he means Creationists are entitled to their beliefs, but not the right to have it taught in the classroom (because it violates separation of Church and State), especially not as a science (because its not).

Exactly: I could care less if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old, but if you think that belief is scientifically valid and thus should be taught in a science classroom, that's when I start having issues with you.

Thanks for all the input, everyone. If it gets published, I shall post it.

[drachefly]

Speaking of which, I recently sent two letters to the metro; both were published. Here is the second, which is more relevant (though both were on the topic of evolution).

It was in reply to a question "Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools? Email us at..." posed in the middle of an article about some proponent of intelligent design.

"Intelligent Design" relies on the claim that irreducibly complex
systems cannot evolve, because there would be no selective pressure
towards a nonfunctioning intermediate state (a system is irreducibly
complex if there is no simpler state that could directly evolve into
it).
However, sometimes a system is overly complex. A simplified form may
work as well or better (and is thus favored by evolution), yet not
allow any further simplifications -- it would be irreducibly complex.
Intelligent Design is really based on the idea that if no answer is
known, there is none; and then ignoring the answers when they are
found.

One of the tough constraints was that they like letters to be around 100 words. Essay writing does not lend itself to the pyramid journalistic form in which the first thing to be cut is the tail of the piece; so I have kept myself under the limit to prevent damage.