Letters to the Editor
Amerigo
Published Letters: 955 Editor's Choice: 60
-
Poor education in US
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Poor education in the US has a lot to answer for.
Darwin's revolutionary text The Origin of Species is an excellent read, a model of clarity, and is available online for no charge. Yet hardly anyone has read it or is familiar with its contents.
It ought to be used as a text book in all schools. One of the first things the young reader will notice is that Darwin scrupulously notes objections to his theory and attempts to raise the strongest possible objections so that he can explain them away.
Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory...
The Origin of Species: Charles Darwin, November 24th 1859
There is absolutely nothing wrong with class discussions about objections to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, because the discussion of the objections is actually part of the theory and necessary to its understanding.
Hopefully the more perceptive young people would also divine that Darwin's scrupulosity in facing up to objections is not matched by that of those "scientists" whose evolutionary theories include fossils created by prankster supernatural beings, compressed time frames, temptation by serpents, painful and life-threatening human childbirth as a punishment for disobedience, descent of all living species from occupants of Noah's Ark, evolution of languages via the Tower of Babel, and so on.
-
Motives...
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think it is easy to be even-handed in a discussion of this topic, because people who think that evolution is basically true believe that the proponents of Intelligent Design and similar theories are fundamentally in bad faith and are not really scientists engaged in advancing knowledge for the benefit of humanity.
They are seen as more in the position of the church hierarchy continuing to maintain that the sun revolved around the earth long after scientific observation had shown that this was not so. Renaissance theologians would have seen the new theory as too threatening to the world order and to their own control of their power base to be accepted--scientific observation be damned!
In response to those posters who say evolution is only a theory that cannot be seen due to the long periods of time necessary: What about the development of breeds to dogs that reproduce true to type, laboratory mice, or strains of rapidly reproducing bacteria that evolve immunity to certain antibiotics, such as MRSA. Isn't an evolutionary explanation much better than an Intelligent Design one? At least an evolutionary explanation gives us a basis for developing counter measures, whereas the Intelligent Design explanation leaves us with little option but to pray for a cure.
-
Fundamentalists and leadership
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Every so often a fundamentalist leader makes a ludicrous public statement, e.g Hurricane X was a punishment for sin Y, now is the time to send money to ministry Z.
Such statements are invariably widely decried and then apologized for and the preacher says that he was misunderstood and that he just meant that the Bible says prayer improves the weather and you tend to get better weather if you pray regularly and support your local church, and the episode is soon forgotten.
Isn't this Creationist ID stuff along the same lines? The people who promote it don't really expect it to be taken seriously, but they are striving for leadership and financial gain among members of their own (somewhat backward) culture and belief system.
The fact that occasionally they get some traction with school boards or legislatures in backward parts of the country where low voter turnout makes openings for religious zealots is a kind of unexpected bonus, but the benefits are geometrically amplified when mainstream media picks up the story and gives at least equal time to both sides of the argument, when really it would be better for all to ignore the story altogether.
The end result is to make the United States a bit of a laughing stock in the developed world, because the fact that seemingly articulate and intelligent people are getting TV coverage for this nonsense makes foreigners think we must all be stupid.
-
He's timid
[Read the article: I'm in love with my bandmate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, he is shy, he is afraid of rejection. He is a timid little bandperson who is afraid of making a faux pas and screwing things up. But he likes the LW and enjoys spending time with her. He is ten years older and in caucasian American circles he could be considered almost a pedophile if he takes a sexual interest in this tender young maiden.
I am assuming that the LW is female, though her gender is not explicitly stated in the letter.
She should ask him if he is gay and if he says no, then she should ask him what kind of girls he finds attractive. Ask him "do you like blondes, brunettes, or redheads?" Make a game of it.
Don't they do Flirtation 101 in college anymore? I guess they are too busy with Intelligent Design and Just Saying No to get on to advanced topics in human relations.
A female neighbor of mine recently told a male neighbor "damn you are a fine looking man S. If I was 18, I would f*** the s*** out of you".
Since he is 25 and she 13, he quickly ran for cover, but one has to be impressed with her ability to communicate her sentiments in a concise and pithy idiom.