Letters to the editor for 7/2

July 02, 2002

Answers missing

To the editor:

After reading Allen Powell's article in The Herald-Mail June 23, 2002, I was compelled to say a few words about the raging controversy between evolutionists and creationists. It is indeed a pity that this issue became a choice between religion and science. In reality we would be better off if we consider the merits of the evolutionary theory on a purely scientific basis. As a scientist myself, I have studied the theory of evolution with a critical mind to look at the evidence and pass judgment using my scientific training.

Unfortunately for the evolutionists, their case seems to be a very tenuous one and in fact the theory becomes very close to being a belief rather than science. Let me start with a very fundamental issue: The origin of life itself. The question is how life started and in what form. My study indicated that no evolutionary scientist ever came up with a satisfactory answer. They admit that they are not in a position to give a definite answer. They cannot agree whether life started on land, in the sea or in a pond or in what form.


In the early 1950s, a graduate student, Stanley Miller, under the direction of Professor Harold Urey, produced amino acids by sparking a mixture of gases containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, presumably representing the earth's early atmosphere. This experiment is cited as representative of the origin of life. Amino acids are a long way from forming life. Besides, the building block of life is protein and none was formed.

So what are the evolutionists saying: If you wait long enough, then the condition may be suitable for life to start spontaneously. Even an eighth-grade student will tell you that this is not science but an assumption being close to a belief. Further, new studies indicate that the early earth's atmosphere very likely contained oxygen, which would have prevented any formation of amino acids.

It must be remembered that life must replicate itself, requiring instructions to do that. Evolutionists are at a loss and they cannot agree whether it was DNA or RNA that came first to give the instructions. Such a complicated molecule as DNA is practically impossible to assemble itself, according to probability calculation. Therefore, evolutionists are stuck in neutral and are unable to move forward. There are other weak points in the theory that can be discussed but space limitation will not permit me to do so.

In the meantime, I would like to give some advice to Powell. Please read the book entitled "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells. Then, I am sure, he may be less inclined to defend Darwin's theory so willingly. On the other hand, I agree with Powell that the "Intelligent Design" should not be taught at schools either, but neither should Darwin's theory since both of them are based on belief and not on true science.

Any one on this earth can have a productive life without the knowledge of evolutionary theory or intelligent design, but certainly every one of us must have some knowledge about science in general to function well in a society.

S.V. Yumlu


Me-first society

To the editor:

In the Sunday, May 12, Herald-Mail columnist Tim Rowland informed the community of an alarming statistic. According to the Washington County Health Department, nearly one in every 10 females ages 18 and 19 is pregnant in the county.

As Rowland reported, the chance of these babies who are born to these 18-and 19-year-olds having successful lives, is dim. Most of these teenage mothers become welfare recipients. Of course the percentage of fathers (and I use that term loosely) who are involved is minimal.

Rowland asks teenagers to give themselves a chance and wait 60 months (five years) before considering having a baby. During that five years it's possible to acquire job skills are/or additional schooling.

Over the last 30 or more years we have gradually become a me first society Spending money you don't have (credit cards), having sex because everybody else is having sex, and consuming alcohol while underage are examples of a me first mentality. If it makes you feel good, do it, and the heck with the consequences. The three examples I have cited are all irresponsible but, in my opinion, conceiving a child at a young age and out of wedlock is the most irresponsible.

Meredith Fouche


The Herald-Mail Articles