- The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 9, 2002

Evolution lacks evidence

William Rusher champions academic freedom in his April 6 Commentary column, "Factoring in 'intelligent design'." Intelligent design is a valid hypothesis that should be taught alongside evolution. The pros and cons of both should be taught in science classrooms.
However, Mr. Rusher states that creationist theory has not won substantial public support because it fails to accord with the scientific evidence, and he names "fossil life forms" as an example. However, it is evolution that doesn't square with the fossil record. Does the fossil record show an abundance of transitional forms, as evolution indicates there should be? Not according to the late Colin Patterson, the former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History. In reply to a question about why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms in his book on evolution, he replied: "If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them."
Charles Darwin excused the lack of transitional fossils as a result of the "extreme imperfection of the fossil record." However, the fossil record is much more complete now, and the gaps are larger than ever.
Mr. Rusher also states that "parts of the theory of evolution are scientifically demonstrable." To which parts is he referring? Is it the ability of either natural selection or mutations to increase genetic information? Natural selection allows species to adapt to their environments, but it works within existing gene pools and actually reduces genetic information. Evolutionists look to mutations, or genetic copying mistakes, as their "creative" force. However, mutations only reshuffle or reduce genetic information. Without a mechanism to increase genetic information, evolution is nothing but a fairy tale.
Why the stranglehold on academic freedom in public schools? It has nothing to do with facts; it's because modern science considers only naturalistic explanations legitimate. This is a philosophical or religious view that rules out creation, regardless of the evidence. Ultimately, evolution is no less religious than creation, and creation is no less scientific than evolution.

JOE MACKES
Crofton, Md.

Agency asleep at the wheel

The April 5 story "Hanssen snooped on Hillary, Chelsea, FBI director" sent chills down my spine. How could the FBI, which prides itself on catching people who engage in criminal activity, be asleep at the wheel while one of its own agents tracked the actions of three high-profile figures? Obviously, the agency's procedures and security need to be tightened, and quickly.
I hope the Bush administration and the Justice Department will take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the president, vice president, Cabinet members, the Congress and their families.

JERRY WILHOITE
Huntsville, Ala.

Selective humanism

I thought that I was missing something in Eileen Sullivan's April 5 letter to the editor, "Pro-abortion = anti-baby an 'insulting argument'." After several careful re-readings, however, I'm certain that she is saying that people who promote the killing of babies through abortion are not anti-baby. She goes on to say, "There are plenty of pro-choice women and men who raised, are raising or hope to raise children." Maybe she means to say that they are not against all babies, just the ones they don't want.

LARRY MERCER
Rockville

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide