Intelligent design and Bible study in schools

Dear Editor,

The question on whether or not to include "intelligent design," once known as "creationism," in the public school curriculum is easy to solve. Should School Board member David Wyman desire to champion that effort, all he needs to do is produce one peer-reviewed paper supporting intelligent design/creationism that meets scientific principles. This, I would assume, should not be too difficult of a task, although in all fairness, Wyman and other supporters of intelligent design/creationism should be forewarned that no such paper is known to exist.

Should reader Bob Lawrence want to contest this approach, or "tactic" as he referred to it in his letter, let me underscore that these principles were laid out long before Charles Darwin entered the scientific arena. Thus, there is hardly a conspiracy at work against Christianity or any religion.

William Ryan

Midlothian

Dear Editor,

I would like to respond to the article, "Evolution vs. intelligent design." The very idea of not presenting all the facts in our classrooms is of great concern to me. It sounds more like indoctrination than education. The school system is obviously not advocating the teaching of any particular creation story in the science classroom. This would be reserved for a world religions course or maybe a study in comparative mythology.

What should be taught in the science classroom are all the scientific facts known up to this point. This means not only supportive evidence, but also that which is contrary to the present theories. Darwin's theory has not withstood the test of time and new evidence. A true scientist will welcome new discoveries, even if they debunk his previous understanding.

Unfortunately, an influential part of today's scientific community refuses to look at these new discoveries, which only serves to hinder the scientific process. There is no room for politics in the advancement of scientific truth. There is so much new evidence in the study of fossil records, geological strata, genetics, radioactive halos and many other areas. To disregard or neglect to teach this evidence that disproves or refutes prevailing thought is plainly unscientific. Our young people deserve to hear all the facts and make their own informed conclusion based on what we know at this point in time. To deny them this is to deny them a true education.

Denise Maurer

Midlothian

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to Bob Lawrence's glaringly inaccurate portrayal of evolution and its shortcomings as a scientific theory.

First and foremost, his apparent lack of understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is quite troubling. The claim that evolution violates said law is nothing short of intellectual laziness. He defines it simply as "order to disorder," when in reality this is quite inaccurate. The law actually states that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one; in other words, total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because earth is not a closed system. Sunlight with low entropy shines on it, and heat with high entropy radiates off. Entropy is not the same as disorder. In fact, the two occasionally correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. Entropy can even be used to produce order, seen as how molecules are sorted by size. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none of these examples require an intelligent program.

Evolution requires three important processes: reproduction, heritable variation and selection. These are observed to happen all the time, so no physical laws are preventing them from occurring. Organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations. As an example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Sometimes a change might happen in the form of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, evolution calls for differential reproductive success. Perhaps the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than the short-appendage ones. These processes can be observed all the time, and again do not violate any physical laws.

Mr. Lawrence goes on to claim that abiogenesis is "not replicable by modern science, no matter how many times the effort is made." Again, this is inaccurate. There is quite a bit that we do not know about abiogenesis, but science is mankind's most effective tool for discovering and learning about the unknown. For anybody who remembers the basics of the scientific method from high school (we are still teaching that in science class, right?), speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculation can be tested, it remains scientific. Much work has been done in support of hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including research into the synthesis of complex molecules in space, as well as research into molecule formation in different atmospheres. He also does not understand that how life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. As long as life exists, evolution applies. Regardless of how you think abiogenesis occurred (creation itself is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there was once no life on earth and now there is. Furthermore, evolution and belief in a god are not mutually exclusive.

He then claims that there are "animals and plants that violate evolution and cannot be explained by its precepts of adaptability." I am not sure which specific examples he is citing, but I am not aware of such organisms. Hiding behind ambiguity is no way to debate in the realm of science. His vague use of the term "genetic firewall" to justify the notion that humans are not related to bananas does not make sense. A banana is the fruit of the plant family Musa. This is the same as saying a pine tree is not related to an animal ovum. This has nothing to do with evolution, and is thus a red herring.

Finally, he paints a shadowy picture in which evolution is given special treatment by which debate is swept under the rug and problems with the theory are ignored - all in the name of covering up the controversy about how mankind arrived on earth. Allow me to be blunt - there is no legitimate controversy. Those wishing to cast doubt are using a repackaged version of creationism in order to slip it in as "intelligent design" into public school science textbooks. I would like to remind Mr. Lawrence and all creationists that the proper venue for debating scientific issues is at science conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As Thomas Carlyle so eloquently put it, "Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance but to do what lies clearly at hand." If you have empirical, quantified, falsifiable evidence with reproducible results that an intelligent being created life on earth, please step up and claim your Nobel Prize.

Zack Ghahramani

Midlothian

Dear Editor,

I think some interesting questions have been brought up in this evolution issue.

The first concerns the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Is everything going from order to disorder? The question is: is God running down and decaying also? If we try to pin evolution to this law, then so shall we attempt to subject God to it; that only seems a fair and balanced controversy. For if evolution is only a theory, could you not say the same thing about religion? And some people do. And here we may be really able to consult Marx, Nietzsche and Russell on the subject as they may have something to inform us about concerning this issue being more of philosophers than evolutionary biologists or molecular chemists.

Second, is God a machine? I mean, do we see the world as a big flying pocket watch made maybe of junk gear and spring parts but without jet engines strapped to the side? And yet, do we feel that we are hurtling through space at a fantastic rate of speed? However, if God is not a big robot building other tiny robots, then is it a fact that there can still be naturalistic design discerned in the world?

So while I await the responses that provide the scientific evidence that God does not follow the physical laws, let me leave you with this: Don't you think forcing naturalistic proofs onto a non-naturalistic cosmology only diminishes God?

Don Fruhwald

Chesterfield

Dear Editor,

I know this evolution vs. intelligent design thing has been bashed around now for several issues of your paper. I'm not a scientist, nor am I a preacher.What I am is scared, scared of the rampant decay of the backbone of this country. It's people! It makes you almost want to believe in evolution. The fact is we seem to be going backwards down the chain only making evolution seem more believable. The only advancement I have seen is that along with the caveman's club we now have the gun, the knife and any other diabolical method to destroy our fellow man.

If you are over the age of 40, did you ever in your wildest dreams think you would see metal detectors in schools, mass murders on high school and college campuses? How about drive-by shootings or killing someone just because they looked at you? If this is intelligent design then somewhere along the road a serious flaw developed.

I don't care if you think you came from a monkey or a divine spirit. Either way, if the proper guidance is used, a monkey can be taught, and a child of divine intervention can be molded into a productive citizen. We have proven that [with] the new age of discipline where the parent has no control, teachers are fired if they even ask a child to do something, the police are disrespected on a daily basis, children are left to run the streets at all hours, what do you expect?

If you take that monkey and every time he doesn't follow instructions, you stand him in the corner for two minutes, what do you think you will achieve? I'll tell you - the Planet of the Apes.

Take that same person over 40 and ask how many times was he made to sit in a corner or go to his room where he had a TV, iPod, games, toys and a nice bed to lay on when he tired of all that harsh discipline.

We are all free to choose between evolution and intelligent design, but without discipline and guidance we will continue to fill our cemeteries and jails with the fruit of our loins that is just left to fall to the ground and rot.

Jerry Stroud

Lakepointe

Dear Editor,

I was appalled when I read the article proposing studying the Bible in the public schools. There is a right to "separation of church and state" in the Constitution which studying the Bible totally goes against. I know the Bible thumpers in the community want everyone to know God, but this is definitely the wrong way to go about it.

There are schools considered "private" or "parochial" where students can openly discuss, read and learn about biblical dates, facts and morality issues. The teachers of today do not have the time, nor the training, in public schools to offer an elective class in biblical literature. It is not a piece of Walt Whitman where the teacher and students can discuss what the author meant or what it means to us today. I say let the people who are trained and licensed to teach the Bible do so in the appropriate setting.

I am not ashamed to call myself a Christian. I am ashamed at how Christian rightists are throwing their opinions around and shoving them down the throats of others. This is solicitation to have others become Christian. How about Wicca or Judaism? I think that the Christian rightists need to wake up and see that the world does not need to be forced to study the Bible in schools, but rather to teach parents to study the Bible at home. The family that prays together stays together. I feel the churches must help secure the families and the upbringing of the child at home before they try to deal with a school setting where there is so much thrown at the students already.

Who is going to answer the questions the students have about the events of the Bible that are obscure? Who is going to explain how Jesus performed the miracles he did? I think these questions are left to the church where the individual attends to be answered by learned people such as ministers and laypeople. These men and women have dedicated their lives to helping bring people to Christ. Do not let it come into the school setting, a wrong or improper answer given, and the School Board having to take an about face on [its] stand on separation of church and state.

Realize also that schools do not have the time nor the knowledge to run such a class. It is too controversial, and I am sure will bring up lawsuits against school districts.

Charles Nagel

Midlothian