letters to the editor 11/5

November 07, 2005

Faith or facts?

To the editor:

Just a few thoughts arising from the letter of Doug Martin of Middletown. I wonder what Martin thinks of the SETI project. Does he believe that the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a legitimate scientific undertaking? Does SETI's hypothesis "achieve the status of valid hypothesis in any accepted meaning of the term?" Is that undertaking based on faith or science? What if extraterrestrial intelligence is found? Could this be the intelligence behind intelligent design?

Has Martin ever read biochemist, Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," or "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" by Phillip Johnson, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley or Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor Michael Denton's book, "Evolution: A theory in Crisis" or, "Intelligent Design" by William Dembski who holds a

Ph. D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Illinois in Chicago?


Has he ever read the new book "Monkey Business: The True Story of the Scopes Trial," by Marvin Olasky and John Perry?

Has Martin ever seriously considered the religious nature of evolution? That it is faith-based and begins with many unprovable assumptions? Has he ever considered the statistical improbability of evolution; that there are many irreversibly complex systems that could not have evolved - blood clotting, vision, cellular transport and more? Or is faith more important than facts?

Edward L. James


A bold stand

To the editor:

I read with interest your "Come Again?" piece on Monday, Oct. 31. You cited a news story from Austin, Texas, wherein the Ku Klux Klan plans to hold a rally to support a constitutional amendment preventing the creation of (the news story mistakenly says "banning") gay marriage. Another supporter of the amendment, Pastor Ryan Rush, opposed the involvement of the Ku Klux Klan, saying that he did not want such a group as a partner on any cause. You closed with the quip, "Only groups with impeccable moral standards should be allowed to hate gays."

And with that, in one sentence, can we assume that you have crystallized the position of The Herald-Mail on the issue of gay marriage - anyone who opposes gay marriage, must, must, hate gays. Is it the position of The Herald-Mail's editorial staff that there are no principled, thoughtful objections to the redefinition of a millennia-old institution? If so, I must say, you have taken a bold stance.

After all, on Feb. 26, 2004, the Boston Globe reported that Sen. John Kerry supported amending the Massachusetts Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. I imagine that it is, therefore, the position of The Herald-Mail editorial staff that John Kerry hates gays. Perhaps the editorial staff is of the mind that Senator Kerry celebrated the death of Matthew Shepard by going on a hot date with a rich widow.

And on Jan. 13, 2003, Howard Dean went on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews," wherein he advised Matthews that he opposed gay marriage because "marriage is very important to a lot of people who are pretty religious." Can we assume, therefore, that it is the position of The Herald-Mail editorial staff that Howard Dean hates gays? Perhaps the editorial staff is of the mind that, between campaign-ending guttural shrieks, Dean likes to unwind with a few snappy AIDS jokes.

On July 15, 2003, CBS News ran a story on its Web site (under the headline "'04 Dems lukewarm to Gay Marriage"), reporting that at a candidates' forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., opposed gay marriage, saying that marriage is a right reserved in America for men and women. I can only conclude, therefore, that it is the position of The Herald-Mail editorial staff that Senator Lieberman hates gays. It would be an interesting expose for The Herald-Mail to investigate why Al Gore chose a man who hates gays as his running mate in 2000;

So, rather than acknowledging that opponents of gay marriage may have arrived at their position honestly and through principled analysis, it would appear that The Herald-Mail would rather take the position that Democrats hate gays. As I said, a bold stance.

Michael E. Nehring


The Herald-Mail Articles