Letters to the editor

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

Leaving an unpleasant legacy

I guess it is important for a president to leave a legacy (“Immigration push seen as Bush’s shot at legacy,” Page 1, Wednesday). Personally, I thought simply doing a good job for our citizens was enough and following the will of the people was the supreme compliment. Since President Bush has failed on these two points, he seeks other opportunities. Our country has seen the Great Emancipator, the Great Communicator, the Great Violator and now it seems the Great Placator. How could Mr. Bush believe that his illegal-alien amnesty is supported by this country, its citizens or its institutions?

Working with the lowest public approval rating of any president in history and in concert with the most despised Congress in history, our president seriously believes that appeasing foreign despots and their criminal followers in the United States is going to boost his ratings. I wonder what class at Yale gave him that impression.

Our representatives in Congress are, in theory at least, to represent the will of their constituents. Did Texas tell Mr. Bush that illegals were OK? Did Massachusetts tell Sen. Ted Kennedy that he had free reign to violate their trust? Did Arizona give Sen. John McCain a free pass for his extended stay at the Hanoi Hilton? Our representatives have generally run amuck.

If Mr. Bush and his band of brigands had real strength of conviction, they would submit this issue and most issues to the people for a vote. These “public servants” believe that if they get the amnesty through, all will be forgiven by the election next year. Illegal immigration will be the paramount issue in 2008. Betrayal of the American people will leave a foul taste for many years to come, and those who support amnesty will reap the whirlwind.

WILSON FARIS

Gaithersburg

Science and faith

In regards to Edd Doerr’s letter “Wait a minute,” (Thursday):

He takes Robert Wilcox to task for his assertion in “Creationism and intelligent design” (Letters, Tuesday) that evolution is not typical experimental science that can be verified in a lab, as are other scientific theories from magnetic fields to quantum physics. Mr. Doerr’s rebuttal is that most scientists accept evolution, so it’s science, and faith isn’t science.

He’s not dealing with Mr. Wilcox’s point that evolution only attempts to explain how organisms developed from simple to complex once the raw materials were present. No lab can demonstrate how anything got here at the beginning. Science has its ideas on that, but it amounts to faith just the same because no one has been able to replicate the creation of something from nothing. Starting from nothing and getting something involves, by definition, nonscientific ideas. Science only begins when something with which to experiment is here.

Once anything is here, evolutionists can explain at least to their satisfaction how every living thing came to be. It’s that first hurdle that confounds. Science has always confirmed, in labs and common experience, that unless you have something to start with, you’re not going to get anything going. It’s like Billy Preston sang, “Nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin.’ You gotta have somethin.’ ”

JACK WEBB

Springfield

Story Continues →

View Entire Story
Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus