From the June 29, 2007, edition of the Anniston Star:
Folly of evolutionists
Before reading Joel Hendon's letter, I was sure that the best and brightest scientists were Nobel laureates. I now find that because these leading scientists unanimously support evolution when "not one piece of empirical evidence has been presented to verify evolutionists' wild assumptions," they are ignoramuses out to "save face, their jobs, their dignity and pride."
In support of evolution, 38 Nobel laureates asked the Kansas State Board of Education to reject standards that criticize evolution. These brilliant scientists said Darwinian evolution was the foundation of biology, and evolution's role has been strengthened by the capacity to study DNA.
The National Academy of Sciences, arguably the greatest collection of scientific brain power in the world, vigorously supports evolution and states that it stands ready to address attempts to limit the teaching of evolution.
I know of no Nobel laureate in science who rejects evolution in favor of creationism. Reason ultimately prevails over superstition.
DAVID N. MILES
Orange Beach
From the June 28, 2007, edition of the Washington Times:
'Wait a minute'
Contrary to Robert Wilcox's assertion ("Creationism and intelligent
design", Letter, June 26) that "faith is required to believe in evolution",
virtually the entire science community -- biologists, geologists,
paleontologists, geneticists, etc -- accepts evolution as fact, based on
many millions of scientific observations and tests by many thousands of
scientists over two centuries. Scientists hold a variety of beliefs about
God and the ultimate origin of the cosmos.
Creationism and intelligent design neocreationism have no scientific
backing, as the US Supreme Court held in 1987 and as Bush-appointed
Pennsylvania federal judge John E. Jones III ruled on December 20, 2005, in
Kitzmiller v. Dover. Those who wish to argue about this may do so in
peer-reviewed science journals or anywhere else except public school
classrooms devoted to science education.
Edd Doerr
Silver Spring, MD
From the June 28, 2007, edition of the Pensacola News Journal:
Not from James Madison
Certain Christian conservatives, frustrated because history does not support their contention that devout Christians established this country as a Christian nation, insist on rewriting history.
A dishonest Christian apologist has duped William E. Williams. In his letter ("Did you know?" June 9), Williams unwittingly states that James Madison once said, "We have staked the whole of our political institution upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
This statement was concocted and widely spread by a Christian propagandist, David Barton, in the early 1990s. In 1998, under pressure, Barton finally admitted that he had not been able to find an original source for this statement; and he actually urged people to stop using it. William Federer incorporated Barton's bogus statement in "America's God and Country," revised in 1994.
Researchers at the University of Virginia, where Madison's papers are kept, searched but were unable to find the alleged quotation. They concluded that it was fiction.
The text of the U.S. Constitution, which Madison "fathered," makes no reference to God, Christ or Christianity and countermands the first four commandments.
DAVID N. MILES
Orange Beach
From the June 14, 2007, edition of the Carroleton Free Press:
Readers Write
Supporters of Senate Bill 16, which places statewide restrictions on adult businesses, repeatedly claimed that those businesses cause crime and other social problems. Little attention has been paid, however, to research disputing their position and indicating that their extreme anti-sex attitude is what actually harms society.
The claim that adult businesses cause crime and other problems has been debunked by a number of studies, including those performed by Daniel Linz, a professor in the Law and Society Program at the University of California at Santa Barbara.
In published research, Linz and his colleagues examined the studies purporting to line negative secondary effects to adult businesses. They expose the studies as being seriously and often fatally flawed.
They also report that scientifically valid research shows no negative secondary effects of adult businesses and sometimes indicates positive effects on communities. Among the beneficial effects can be jobs and a stronger economy.
Other research indicates that rabid anti-sex attitudes, such as those displayed by the backers of SB 16, contribute to crime.
Sex therapist and researcher Aileen Goodson says, "Fundamentalist theological thinking -- which tends to promote body shame and sexual regression -- is far more prevalent among sex offenders than among the general population."
A leading expert on sexual violence, Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins Medical School, reports that most people who engage in sex crimes are raised with strict anti-sexual repressive attitudes. He predicts, "Current repressive attitudes toward sex will breed an ever widening epidemic of aberrant sexual behavior."
The first International Conference on the Treatment of Sex Offenders, held in Minneapolis in 1989, included similar predictions. Key participants there agreed that Western societies with repressive sexual attitudes and traditional male-female roles are likely to have higher rates of all forms of sex crimes.
If these experts are correct, SB 16 could harm Ohio's economy and contribute to higher crime rates. Their research should have been seriously considered in the debates about the bill.
Joseph C. Sommer
Columbus, OH
From the May 31, 2007, edition of the Mobile Press-Register:
Brilliant minds reject creationism
Kudos to James W. Maycock. In his May 23 letter, "Evolution has missing links," he avoids the nebulous statements normally made by anti-evolutionists, e.g., "many scientists dispute evolution" and from a recent letter stating that a museum of creationism "gives you the scientific evidence from real scientists." Maycock gives us a name -- astrophysicist Hugh Ross, Ph.D.
In researching Ross, I found there is such a person who does have a doctorate from the University of Toronto. However, I could not find mention of contributions he has made to science. He is a Christian apologist advocating creationism, without providing empirical evidence for his claims.
In support of evolution, 38 Nobel Laureates asked the Kansas State Board of Education to reject standards that criticize evolution. These Nobel Laureates said Darwinian evolution was the foundation of biology; and evolution's role has been strengthened by the capacity to study DNA.
The National Academy of Sciences, arguably the greatest collection of scientific brain power in the world, vigorously supports evolution and states that it stands ready to address attempts to limit the teaching of evolution.
The best and the brightest unanimously reject creationism.
DAVID N. MILES
Orange Beach
From the May 22, 2007, edition of the Pensacola News Journal:
Missionaries: Stay home
Clarence McDonald tells Christian preachers to go to far countries and preach ("Go pastors, go," Letters, May 22).
Declaring Christianity preferable to the religions of other peoples and nations is an act of naivete and arrogance motivated by self-interest and often greed. This elicits bitter resentment. If missionaries had a genuine concern for the people, they would remain silent as to religion and bring health care, useful skills and education with its proven rewards -- not more superstition with its false hopes.
If there were evidence that "the Lord's word" improved the condition of people already steeped in their own religion, then missionary proselytizing might be justified. What did "Christian soldiers" do for the indigenous peoples of North and South America? They relieved them of their property, brought them disease and kept them largely illiterate.
Within the first hundred years after Columbus, the Spaniards, with the complicity of Christian missionaries, murdered millions.
In our country Chief Pontiac commented, "They came with a Bible and their religion -- stole our land, crushed our spirit, and now tell us we should be thankful to the Lord for being saved."
How would McDonald react to a Muslim missionary asking him to forsake Christ for Mohammed?
David N. Miles
Orange Beach, Ala.
From the May 20, 2007, edition of the Washington Times:
'Commonsense principles'
Mary Manno ("The law and religious tests", letter, May 14) unfairly
criticized Teri Grimwood ("Not a religious test", Letters, May 10) and Edd
Doerr ("Church, state and JFK", Letters, May 5).
Mrs. Grimwood and Mr. Doerr simply wrote that judges and lawmakers should
not put their nonconsensus personal religious views into law, a principle
that most Catholic, Protestant and Jewish judges and lawmakers adhere to in
our country.
Of course that does not affect laws against murder, robbery and perjury,
since prohibitions against those acts are universally condemned for common
sense secular and religious reasons.
In any event, commonsense ethical principles came from human experience and
preceded religious injunctions. Does anyone really think that Hebrews went
around aimlessly murdering each other, stealing and perjuring before Moses
came down from Mount Sinai?
As Mrs. Grimwood and Mr. Doerr pointed out, the five Catholic justices in
Gonzales v. Carhart based their opinion on religious doctrine while ignoring
expert medical opinion and protections of the health of women recognized by
the Supreme Court for 34 years.
John Cole
Hayward, Calif.
From the May 19, 2007, edition of the Anniston Star:
Re James L. Evans' credibility
Letter writer Philip Rowe feels that Baptist pastor and Star columnist James L. Evans has lost his credibility. Why? Because Evans lets evidence and reason prevail over blind faith. Apparently, Rowe finds it virtuous to accept a notion as fact without evidence that it is true.
Evans understands that by relying on empirical evidence and rejecting unsupported ideas, science cures diseases, gives us modern conveniences and answers myriad questions. Religionists like Rowe reject evidence that conflicts with their beliefs and refuse to update their thinking, even in the face of facts and reason. This dogmatic intransigence makes it impossible for religion to solve problems and progress as science does. It only fosters irrational intolerance leading to hatred and violence.
While Evans is willing to consider evidence provided by science that homosexuality is a genetic trait, Christian conservatives reject these findings because a book written by ancient tribesmen who never heard of biology or psychology proclaimed that homosexuality was abhorrent to their deity.
Christianity is in dire need of the wisdom and understanding demonstrated by Evans.
David N. Miles
Orange Beach
From the May 14, 2007, edition of the UticaOD:
Religious tolerance an important goal
I commend the organizers of the recent interfaith potluck meal which invited discussion between local Muslims and Christians.
The benefits are invaluable to the entire community and help to promote pluralism. Considering the current state of religious affairs, tolerance and open-mindedness are hard to come by. I find it reassuring to know that there are those with the intellectual maturity to realize the importance of communication amongst different faiths.
It is unfortunate that so many misunderstandings and stereotypes exist but it is a reality we must face and actively address. When people die or are discriminated against because of this misinformation, we are all affected, regardless of religion. I suggest continuing these interfaith events and to include not only Christians and Muslims but Jews, Buddhists, etc. as well. Other local churches, mosques, and temples should take notice and join in the effort. We have much to learn from each other.
ADAM JOSKER
Stittville
From the May 14, 2007, edition of the Tuscaloosa News:
Professors reject epistemology
Dear Editor: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." I Corinthians 1:19. In his May 8 letter [Faculty cold to Christians, study says], David Sloan demonstrates this unfortunate attitude toward knowledge. He complains that college faculties have a higher percentage of atheists and individuals who don't embrace religion than the general public. In other words, these faculty members in pursuing and imparting knowledge tend to utilize reason and experience rather than authoritarianism and divine revelation.
Religious conservatives have such fear of secular knowledge and education that they have even attacked atheists from the floor of Congress. Rep. James Traficant Jr., (D-Ohio) made the following comments on Aug. 3, 1998:
"Mr. Speaker, a new report says that only 7 percent of scientists [members of the National Academy of Sciences] believe in God. That is right. And the reason they gave was that the scientists are 'super smart'. Unbelievable. Most of these absent-minded professors cannot find the toilet. My colleagues, all the education in the world is worthless without God and a little bit of common sense."
Professors are not attacking Christians as Sloan alleges. They are merely rejecting an invalid epistemology. Those finding this offensive should avoid universities where knowledge is based on empirical evidence and attend a faith-based institution. How does Sloan feel about "most unfavorable feelings" toward atheists that emanate from the pulpit?
David N. Miles
Orange Beach
From the May 12, 2007, edition of the Montgomery Advertiser:
Letter indicts writer's beliefs
Gary Hardin's letter "Natural things not beyond judgment" on May 9 is an indictment of his religion. He lets us know that "definite proof" that a religious belief is false would not destroy his faith. Why is it a virtue to accept a notion as fact without requiring proof?
While science has provided evidence that homosexuality is an innate trait, Hardin rejects these findings because a book written by ancient tribesmen who never heard of biology or psychology proclaims homosexuality is abhorrent to a deity. This deity appears to be cruel, irrational, vindictive and capricious.
Science rejects ideas not supported with evidence; then proceed to cure diseases, give us modern conveniences and solve a myriad of problems. Religion rejects evidence that conflicts with its beliefs and refuses to change even in the face of facts and reason.
This dogmatic intransigence makes it impossible for religion to solve problems. It can only foster intolerance, leading to hatred and violence. Religions cannot even resolve internal disputes; and these disputes have consistently led to war. Religions proclaim their beliefs are the only true beliefs.
Hardin cannot give one valid reason why protected homosexual acts between consenting adults are wrong. The best he can do is quote his particular moral authority. Without religion we would have less ignorance, superstition, bigotry and violence, but we would still have hospitals, schools, charities, caring, understanding, knowledge and a rational code of ethics.
David N. Miles
Orange Beach
From the May 11, 2007, edition of the Idaho Statesman:
Bring troops home
Imagine a Virginia Tech massacre occurring in this country every day in every major city with no end in sight. Such endless violence would probably bring down governments at every level.
This is the terror that is visited upon Iraqis every day thanks to the war for oil that the Cheney-Bush junta illegally and deceitfully inflicted on Iraq.
By failing to provide enough troops Bush allowed the looters to take over. (But the tax cuts for Bush's uber-wealthy masters were preserved.) By failing to provide jobs for the Iraqi army, which Bush disbanded, the insurgency was ignited. By failing to provide a working government and police force the sectarian civil war was launched.
Bush and the neoconservative zealots who supported this war have said they wanted to change the political map of the Middle East. They may get their wish. Over dinner recently, a professor from Iran told me that he fears that the Bush-Cheney assault will lead to the complete takeover of the Middle East by Islamic militants. Even Turkey and Pakistan may fall, he fears.
It's time to bring home the troops - Bush's incompetence lost the war against Iraq before it ever began.
Gary L. Bennett, Emmett
From the May 5, 2007, edition of the Washington Times:
'Church, state and JFK'
John Yoo's slam at critics of the Supreme Court's April 20 abortion
rights ruling in Gonzales v Carhart ("Silly or sad", Culture, etc, May 2)
was way off target. John F. Kennedy was right in 1960 in saying that "I do
not speak for my church on public matters", but the five rather
unrepresentative Catholics on the Court who put their church's official
position ahead of legal precedent, ahead of informed medical opinion, and
ahead of the rights, health and dignity of women, veered 180 degrees away
from JFK's sincere respect for freedom of conscience and church-state
separation. Their behavior was inexcusable.
Edd Doerr, President
Americans for Religious Liberty
Silver Spring, MD