Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


Why would the Catholic Church endorse the theory of evolution?

To The Daily Sun,
James Veverka I think, thinks himself to be a paragon of knowledge and wisdom. Yet in my experience with him, he never digs deeply enough into a subject that he writes about to actually understand the matter for which he purports to have this great knowledge.

He writes about intelligent design and the theory of evolution. His letter is actually a response to my previous letter, but he won't write it as such because in so doing he would need to respond to some valid observations concerning the theory of evolution that I brought to the readers' attention. He would rather pretend that the things that I wrote about do not exist. That saves him from having to respond to them. He then just launches out with his boilerplate definitions and explanations, and there is no dialog.

I will digress here for Jim starts out telling us about Alabama's new science and education standards. Just what does that have to do with the matter. I acknowledge that if not the whole world, most of it is moving in the "progressive" direction as I write. Yet, I think this quote is apt here, "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." If the whole world believes that man has descended from an amoeba and someone says no, God created each according to its kind that would seem revolutionary, even though it is true. Citing Alabama's science standards here is kind of like the kid whose parents won't let him go to a particular party, and he says, aw, but all the other kids parents are letting them go. It has nothing to do with an intellectual argument. It is strictly about peer pressure: well if they're doing it, it must be right. But its not, and the party gets busted and two kids die of an over dose of heroin at it. So it is with Jim's pointing to Alabama's change in standards. By the way all the changes do not have to do with evolution or climate change.

As most who read my letters know, I'm a creationist. But the discussion here turns to intelligent design which is a different view from mine, but how it is treated by the scientific community is instructive. The persecution of those who have been bold enough to consider this concept openly, in the scientific community, I have eluded to in my two previous letters. Here Jim is at best ignorant or at worst not forthcoming. He would do well to try to understand a concept before he writes about it, instead, he says that, "Intelligent design assumes as certain fact that there is a God and then tries to build a case within that box." Rather it is the "study of patterns in nature that are best explained as and result of intelligence" and it "is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation." as apposed to, assuming that we are here through "the common decent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection."

Jim says, that the idea of irreducible complexity always crumbles when examined. I'd like to see him defend that assertion.

Jim says that science is neutral on the creator. I would like him to show how this is possible when the theory of evolution creates a historical narrative in which one is forbidden to consider the creator's creative power and design. How is that being neural on the creator? Evolutionists will only ever give you double talk on that. Or some will recommend what type of faith is compatible with the theory of evolution. Does that sound to be neutral on the creator? We accept Him as we find Him. Not as someone would wish him to be.

This brings to mind a point Jim makes in his letter. Some Christians hold to the theory of evolution as actual. This letter is already longer than I would like, so I'm going to pick an easy target for an example here, the Catholic Church. No offense to my Catholic brothers and sisters. While nuns and priests at the local level fight valiantly against government usurpation of religious freedom, the Catholic Church endorses the theory of evolution, which is the foundation for the doctrines that their ministers are struggling against. These and all like them are those whom I would like to reach. For to agree with evolutionists in their grand theory is to make common cause with those who would destroy the church.

John Demakowski

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 288

Funding for World Trade Center health program has expired

To The Daily Sun,
The headline read: "Congress Fails to Reauthorize Funding for 9/11 First Responders and Survivors". "Funding for the World Trade Center Health Program expired at midnight on Wednesday."

This now leaves tens of thousands of its beneficiaries wondering how they will continue to get their much needed medical treatment.

This program was created in 2010 and provides medical treatment for survivors and first responders who worked at the site after the Twin Towers were attacked and collapsed. There are more than 72,000 enrolled in this fund and affected people are dying each week because of their exposure to the toxic chemicals created by the 9/11 attacks.

Congress has failed to approve an extension of this crucial act. Without it thousands of people who are still suffering from the after affects of exposure to asbestos, lead and glass fibers, just to name a few of the deadly chemicals, are in danger of losing medical access and reimbursement for treatment.

The program has enough funding for another year, but CDC director Tom Frieden has said that in 2016 it will face "significant operational challenges" without an extension.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., reminded her fellow senators that "more police officers have died in the aftermath of 9/11 than did in the attacks themselves."

What's important to note is why this particular bill has expired now. It's all due to retired Senator Tom Coburn (who is receiving his generous congressional pension for life). He insisted that funding coverage expire in 2015, even though many of his GOP colleagues not only urged its passage, but wanted the coverage to extend for many more years. This is Tom Coburn's legacy. I hope he's proud of it.

Bernadette Loesch


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 345