Letters Favoring Intelligent Design
Letters in the May 18, Orange County Register overwhelmingly supportive of intelligent design.
Stereotypes dont engage “the essential questions”
Tom Teepens column, The sham that is Intelligent Design [May 10], provides little enlightenment of Intelligent Design, displaying instead little understanding of the scientific or philosophical bases. His invectives (sham, brouhaha, gimmick, pseudoscience) do little to even support Darwins conjectures.
His erroneous implications include: ID support is only Christian based; scientists do not support ID; creationism was conjured up to counter court rulings; and ID support comes solely from Republican majorities. ID involves very detailed scientific analyses of biological systems. It questions how such complexity could evolve incrementally in a randomly driven process controlled by survival of fittest. Absent fossil data or other substantial scientific evidence supporting Darwins conjectures, after all this time, many scientists, including secular ones, are driven elsewhere for explanations.
ID challenges evolutionists to describe how incredibly complex biological systems of subsystems, like eyesight and blood clotting, could have evolved incrementally. Intermediate stages in sight evolution (incomplete, hence sightless) are not likely to have resulted due to survivability. Thinking persons with some modicum of open-mindedness might explore ID and take a shot at answering such questions. If it leads to a designer, let there be one.
Stan Sholar
Huntington Beach
19th century wizards of oz
Tom Teepen unable or unwilling to intelligently confront the growing legions attacking his beloved macroevolution (William Dembski on the mathematical front, Michael Behe on the biological front, and Phillip Johnson on the logical front) resorts to a tried and tested ad hominem diatribe: Only five years into the new millennium, our fingertip grip on the 21st century already is slipping. We could tumble into the 18th before you can say macroevolution.
He refuses to acknowledge that the emperor may actually have no clothes or that the little professor behind the curtain is not the great and powerful Wizard. It must be a bit disconcerting to see philosophical icons such as former atheist Anthony Flew switch to deism solely on the solidity of arguments for Intelligent Design. We are moving ahead in the 21st century. One can only hope that Tom Teepen keeps from tumbling back into the 19th.
James Beasley
Aliso Viejo
Science with an agenda
I am a professional engineer with a chemical engineering degree and several certifications. Tom Teepens closing comment in the article, The sham that is intellegent design, is another indication of how fearful the Darwinian theorists are of the truth or any contradiction to what they consider to be the truth so they can force their views on others as part of a covert agenda for abortion, homosexual activism and other grievous sins which are an anathma to Judaeo-Christian values.
Other viewpoints should be recognized. I experienced these in public school 50 years ago. I have both learned and experienced that our secular system doesnt work no matter how hard we try to hide our shortcomings by changing standards, personal accountability, SATs or laws.
The bottom line is that the secular population cant really understand spiritual principles For example, one version of the Big Bang theory states that there was nothing in the beginning and then it blew up. Its kinda like the Darwinians whocant accept there is no fossil evidence for evolution/mutation in a vertical vector of species development. They are still looking for the missing link which may be the best evidence that is was left out by Intelligent Design. We pray for you and our country in God we trust
Ed Johnston
San Juan Capistrano
Enlightenment from tradition
Once again we have a journalist telling us what is the supposed truth of the Intelligent Design. But, this is a biblical and theological issue, and not an issue for a lay journalist to be lobbying for or against with politics. Thank God for Kansas common sense, and seeking to balance the issue. Though we could use a bit of the 18th century thought and logic of John Lockes language, which was used by two great minds of our Christian West: John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards. Their Lockean manifestation drew on Enlightenment thought and traditional theology alike. And in this too, is the tradition of Intelligent Design:the Creator God.
Rev. Robert Page
Anaheim
Evading the real issues
The real sham was several columns of ad hominem attack on religious conservatives. Proponents of I.D. are asking middle and high school educators to allow reasonable challenges to evolutionary theory be included in science textbooks. For Teepen this equates to idiot fairness and a defacing of biology texts. Drop the hyperbolic name calling, address the issues and the sham might just evolve into believable truth.
Dave Peeler
Laguna Niguel
Humanity in context
Intelligent Design makes sense to me as long as humankind is not proclaimed the glorious, crowning achievement. This newspaper, television and common sense tells us that something far better must be in the works by an Intelligent Maker.
Allen Wilson
Cypress