Replies

If I had known of the article earlier, I'd have written a letter to the editor. Instead we got these:

In the beginning

Whether evolution or creation, both are still theories
Editor, The Times:
Wow, I had to duck fast and early to miss the knee-jerk reaction of Mindy Cameron ("Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection," Times guest column, June 3). The "We know what they are really saying" (wink, wink) and immediate call to arms over the discussion of any compatibility between intelligent design and natural selection. What she misses completely is that evolution and creation are both theories.
Wait just minute — hold that knee down! One has more backing from a certain segment of the population and one has more backing from another. Science is not supposed to be subject to those all-too-human emotions that impact positions and arguments from each side, but it is.
It is telling to note that Cameron states, "I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design... But it is only a belief." It is an equally true statement to substitute "evolution" for "intelligent design." It may be a majority belief, but it nevertheless requires its own faith.
Stephen Jay Gould's theory tried to explain the lack of actual demonstration of evolution of a new species rather than the natural selection within a species. Until that happens and is repeatable (that, by the way, is science), evolution is simply a different religious belief.
- Barry Baker, Seattle
A divine spark
I've read that in inventing the incandescent light, Thomas Edison tried some 4,000 different ideas before he hit on one that worked. Oops, that didn't work — oops, that didn't work — oops, that didn't work — Hot damn! — look at that baby glow!
Was this an evolutionary process or intelligent design? Looks to me like it was both.
There are a whole lot of really interesting "Questions to Ponder" out there, like:
What sort of "stuff" did the Big Bang "bang" from?
What was God doing before Creation? Shooting pool at the eternal billiards parlor — or what?
Wasn't the Pythagorean Theorem true even before Pythagoras thought of it? Wasn't it always true? Even before the Big Bang, Creation or whatever? This sort of implies that "Nothing" may be impossible, if this theorem was always true — then there never was "nothing."
I think this makes the "Creation vs. Big Bang controversy" a little trivial; there's something more profound here.
We'll have to scrap the dogmas from both sides to pursue this much further. Seems to me to be a worthwhile venture, both in the classroom and out.
- Norm Seaholm, Seattle
Unevolved thought
Mindy Cameron's summation as to what intelligent design argument is about, demonstrates stunning ignorance. She offered no credible defense of evolution. There is no evidence suggesting the super-micro particles of life evolve even in the slightest.
In the vacuum of anything better, I suppose evolution is all Darwinists have, but you look silly in insisting this be taught in public schools based on recent research, and it would indicate that this argument clearly has more to do with simple politics than it does science.
My criticisms of the entire debate centers in hypocrisy in checks and balances that dramatically change depending on which direction the criticism is headed. Until both parties can explain the opposing opinion correctly, and apply the same standards in both directions, none of us has the right to teach anything on this topic in the public schools.
Fortunately, judging from polls regarding belief in God, it appears the students of America can see a fraud regardless of how much evolution gets shoved down their throats. Might I suggest the Darwinist camp start being a bit more honest with their "evidence"?
- Phil Caldwell, Seattle
Barriers at the gate
OK, I am a seventh-grade science teacher, and I just finished my mandatory unit on Intelligent Design (as required by the state and Harcourt Brace). My students ask the natural question (the only thing that matters in this theory): "Well, who is this Designer?" My answer: Xenu, the Uber Soul from a galaxy far, far away.
Would the Christians be OK with that? After all, their goal is not to put God in the classroom, but to offer a science-based alternative to evolution, so why should they care?
Fact is, the genesis of our universe only matters within the realm of science, because it is science that will make some practical use of the knowledge. Religious believers want the knowledge (actually, they act as if they already have it, don't they?) so they can drive a "wedge" between themselves and the rest of the unenlightened world. Heaven has a gate, right? With Saint Peter guarding it. What is a gate but a passage through a wall or fence? Why a wall around Heaven? Metaphor! We are good and smart and right. They are bad and stupid and evil.
Science has given us Velcro and minivans and computers and fields of wheat that feed 10,000 instead of 10. Religion has given us false comfort and hope when we are sick, and guys who fly jets into buildings.
Which domain of activity has benefited humanity more?
- Dave Stead, Port Orchard
Separate but equal
While we can all have sympathy for people whose religious beliefs seem threatened by the discoveries of science, Mindy Cameron is right to point out this need not be the case, since science and religion occupy two distinctly different spheres of the human experience.
To insist on the inclusion of "Intelligent Design" in science curricula is like adding sand to a recipe for apple pie — it just doesn't belong. It may be a comforting idea to those who refuse to accept the reality of what science discovers, but science isn't the place to turn for comfort and a sense of belonging — that job belongs to our religious and cultural beliefs, just as it should be.
We can no more shoehorn faith into the realm of science than we can force God into a test-tube, so why continue tilting at windmills? Congratulations to Cameron for the thoughtful essay on why such confusion benefits no one.
- John Hedley, Kirkland

Thursday, June 6:

Intelligent discussion

The designer has no label
Mindy Cameron's column on intelligent design is another attempt to obfuscate the issue of the origin of life ("Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection," guest column, June 3). Instead of scientifically addressing the critiques by intelligent-design proponents, Darwinists and their supporters like Cameron focus on the "G" word or a sociological agenda by right-wing conspirators. How about the scientific evidence?
I have the video "Icons of Evolution" that Cameron criticized. I read Jonathan Wells' book. He lists and describes in detail many distortions that appear in high-school and college biology textbooks and refutes Darwinistic claims that these "icons" prove the theory of evolution.
Cameron's dread of a belief system invading our schools has already happened. It is the materialistic, atheistic philosophy that serves as a base for Darwinian evolution and is disguised as science. A chief proponent was Stephen Jay Gould, who may have criticized traditional Darwinism (due to the lack of evidence in the fossil record) but was still a neo-Darwinist who held to the philosophy.
Intelligent design does not attribute a name to the designer. It could be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist god or none of the above. It may have been space aliens, or the Earth itself, for Gaia theory fans. The important consideration is this: Does the scientific evidence best support design or macroevolution?
One thing we do know: Students will remain impoverished when the school boards reject the advice of Congress and true science and instead embrace materialistic philosophy.
— Tim Hope, Kent
Clear-eyed faith
I found Mindy Cameron's column grossly misleading. From what I read, she sees intelligent-design theorists as anti-scientific hillbillies who reject accepted scientific fact. In reality, the theory of evolution is just that: a theory (i.e., something that hasn't been proven true). And 100 years of digging and probing hasn't proven whether or not it is (true).
We who believe in intelligent design come to our conclusions the same way scientists do; by examining the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on our observations. We came to our conclusion honestly, not through a blind, irrational faith like Cameron seemed to suggest.
Yes, intelligent design is founded on a religious basis. But evolution is also founded on a similar "religious basis": the idea of the absence of God.
If teaching an unproven theory that tries to explain God away is allowed to be taught, I don't see why an alternative theory to the same controversy could not be shown by its side. Intelligent design is, after all, an accepted theory, with its proponents in just about every area of science. And whether Cameron agrees or not, it is a rational theory that deserves to be given a chance in our public institutions.
— Joshua Tom, Bothell
Designer's dream
I submit that intelligent design is much more than a mere belief about life's origins. Many informed persons today consider intelligent design more scientific than evolution.
Item: It's the consistency and rationality of Earth's properties that allow scientists to explore hopefully and explain confidently. It's that same consistency and rationality that allows pharmacologists to design medicines that work predictably.
It would appear the intelligent designer wanted his creation explored by the fascinated and admired by the informed.
— J. Philip Prigge, Seattle