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must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published.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.

 

They need not contend that evolution is true, only that it's 'science'

To The Daily Sun,
E. Scott Cracraft is less than straight forward in his Oct. 27 column "Faith, philosophy and science". He reminds us that, "The scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th Centuries was not 'anti-faith'". In fact, these breakthroughs in science were, in large part, due to changes in thinking brought about by the Protestant Reformation. If you teach people to read the Scriptures for themselves, the logical conclusion is that people should think for themselves and reach their own conclusions."

Absolutely. I've said as much in past letters. But the revolution of Lyell and Darwin and the theory of evolution is not the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th Centuries. They hardly resemble each other at all. Yet apologists for the theory of evolution will almost always defend it by associating it with the Copernican and Newtonian revolution. Did you ever wonder why that is? It is that it needs that association to hold it in public esteem. Newtonian physics has been confirmed by observation and precise mathematical calculations. The theory of evolution has nothing like that. It is a theory that has been in search of supporting evidence for more than a century and a half and none is forthcoming. All the evidence that they ever present is evidence of variation in kind. They don't even really know what determines a species. Every experiment that they've performed, in trying to induce biological changes, I understand shows a resistance to change beyond variation in kind. They have no incontrovertible fossil evidence. The only thing that would seem to qualify it as science is that itseems to be that the changes that they theorize to have happened would have been in the physical realm if they had happened.
Scott claims, "Intelligent design only emerged as an attempted end run around court decisions that teaching creation "science" was an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into taxpayer-funded schools." Being a college professor Mr. Cracraft should do a better job of doing his homework on finding out what I.D. is if he is interested in people thinking for themselves, for to do so requires having accurate information. Otherwise you're not really teaching people to think for themselves but merely to repeat your misinformation. What happened in a court case in Pennsylvania is not a history of the emergence of I.D. or a description of what I.D. is, as it seems Scott would have us to believe.
Intelligent Design is a concept held by scientists and philosophers of science who hold that the scientific evidence cannot be explained by the theory of evolution. These scientists hold that the best explanation for the evidence is that there must have been an intelligent designer. They cite the complexity of a cell, the information present in DNA, the sudden appearance of complex life forms in the Cambrian explosion and the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record do not support that we are here through "the common decent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection." They make a pretty compelling case that the evidence just does not support the theory of evolution, but an intelligent designer. (I'm afraid Wikipedia is not much help here, for the article is written by an I.D. skeptic. To be fair, an article about I.D should be written by an I.D proponent and if progressives really were concerned about people being able to think for themselves it would have been so written. YouTube has a number of videos done by proponents of I.D for anyone who is interested.) If science cannot consider where the evidence leads, perhaps it is the wrong venue for teaching on our origin.
The theory of evolution is taught in our schools as settled science, the authoritative truth of our origin. Yet in college courses that teach how scientists know what they know, the instructor will admit that science makes no claim to have the truth, but only that scientist agree that a thing is science. So on the one hand they need not defend evolution as to be true only that they agree that it is science, it might be wrong but it's science — it is sophistry fully matured — on the other hand to students in our school system it is authoritative truth. Have you not read that, "differing weights are an abomination to the Lord." For in this case their reasoning goes that man is the measurer of all things.
Mr. Cracraft reminds us of Galileo's persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church. Yet scientists who are bold enough to mention I.D. in a positive light in public suffer similar fates at the hand secularist evolutionists who now represent the establishment, as the Catholic Church did in the 17th Century. They do not have the power to put someone under house arrest, but to fire teachers and editors of scientific journals, to shut down online labs which are scientists fund raising tools, to black ball college professors so that they can't get jobs teaching, to basically excommunicate a scientist from the scientific community. These are some of the persuasive tactics evolutionist use to reign in scientists "who think for themselves" and are bold enough let it be known publicly.

John Demakowski

Franklin

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 749

Katie LaRoche will partner with Andrea Condodemetraky

To The Daily Sun,

Thank you for printing my Letter to the Editor on Tuesday, Nov. 3, regarding the Santa Fund. I made an error in the name of the person dancing with our secretary Andrea Condodemetraky. I had written Ashley Laroche, the correct name is Katie LaRoche, who is the owner of Dancing Feet Studios in Bristol.

Thank you for the correction.

Janet Brough, Boardmember
Santa Fund of the Greater Lakes Region

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 541