Still Barely Readable

Aha! For those of you that had trouble reading the article in the post below,  I found a copy of it online. I copied it so that I could paste it here. I must warn you though, even though the print will be much clearer, it's not any easier to read!

Evolution is a safe curriculum

A June 13 news story, “Standards keep evolution on books,” amounted to this: Evolution is the undisputed unifying theory of biology, but let’s retread old emotional and religious debates about how intelligent design is not even in the conversation (thankfully).


Why not focus on how the stork theory of reproduction hasn’t been proposed as a standard lately? Or how about the smite theory of disease? Or even the geocentric model of our solar system? The best quote in the story, “I’ve had zero contact from anyone (regarding intelligent design),” came from a state standards committee member.
It’s best that those offering opinions and news coverage on this issue try to adhere to an old saying: Only speak if you can improve upon the silence. Rattling fundamentalist cages isn’t helping school board members or biology teachers. It just wastes time and taxpayer money.


John Morley, Omaha

Oh, and the second article? Well, before I share it clearly, I hope you'll enjoy the article that prompted it. Here it is...


I object to Nebraska standards



Never mind whether intelligent design should be taught in the public schools. It should not. The question is whether neo-Darwinist theories, which are based more on theory than fact, should be taught.
There are numerous gaping holes in the current evolutionary theories, which are most often glossed over or never mentioned to high school biology students.
Why is it still being taught that the first life on Earth simply assembled itself at random from some kind of self-replicating molecule in an unspecified chemical process?


There are no self-replicating molecules outside of living organisms! No scientist on Earth has a single shred of factual evidence showing how a lifeless chemical could have evolved into a living organism.


So isn’t that faith, or a philosophical belief system, now being taught in the public schools? I certainly object to the Nebraska state scientific standards as they are written.


Glenn Simonsen, Omaha

Now for the article that I have pictured in the next post...

 
Evidence supports Darwinism

I believe Glenn Simonsen’s June 16 letter contains factual errors, as well as a misrepresentation of scientific methodology.
He falsely claims that neo-Darwinism is based more on theory than on fact. Charles Darwin’s observations of nature have been conclusively proven accurate by the science of genetics.


Simonsen also falsely claims that “no scientist has a single shred of factual evidence showing how a lifeless molecule could have evolved into a living organism.” The formation of organic compounds using natural conditions present on primordial Earth has been achieved numerous times in the lab.


I understand that it must be frustrating for believers to be bombarded with empirically derived knowledge that conflicts with literal interpretations of their faith.
But faith is not a requirement in scientific study, which relies on objective observation and experimentation. Faith is only necessary when there is insufficient evidence to continue believing. Darwin’s findings do not fit into that category.


Larry Claassen, Lincoln


Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...