Letters to the editor

School spirit

The faculties can get a trifle overhyped

Editor, The Times:

On Monday, President Bush said that schools should teach both the theory of evolution and the proposition of intelligent design ["Teaching evolution alone not enough, Bush says," Times, News, Aug. 2].

I wonder if Bush or any of the other religious-right groups that are pushing for this read the theory or have even checked out [intelligent design proponent] Discovery Institute's Web site. I suspect not. Intelligent design is definitely not biblical creationism; in fact, it is explicitly stated on the Web site and in several articles that the theory does not support the biblical theory of creation, or any other religious texts, for that matter. It is also clearly stated that the "Intelligent Designer" could be anything from aliens to space debris.

So before the religious right jumps on the Bush bandwagon about having it taught in schools and our tax dollars go to buying new textbooks, I have a little advice for you: Do your homework!

What I don't understand is why the Discovery Institute is not speaking up about this misconception, unless of course it is creationism wrapped up in a different package and they are trying to slide it in under the radar in the cloak of secular science.

— Patrick Maunder, Seattle

Lord knows

The mystery of life must not be swept under the table

Why are evolutionary supporters so afraid to have "intelligent design" taught alongside Darwin's theory? It seems we fight censorship at all costs in this country until it comes to Christianity... then we release the lions.

Even if a day comes when evolution graduates from theory to scientific fact, I will still find more comfort in my faith than in a Periodic Table of the Elements.

— Doug Boyles, Tacoma

All of them created equal?

So now the president — who has no scientific training and admittedly doesn't read — telling school boards that intelligent design should be included in school biology classes to present differing points of view.

Surely his logic would lead one to conclude that schools should also present the views of the racist Church of the Creator, the KKK, jihadists, and other groups that devoutly believe such teachings.

Do the president and other supporters of intelligent design realize that the concept supports only 18th-century Deism and not biblical Christianity?

It might be politically useful as a stalking horse, but does not in itself promote evangelical/fundamentalist goals, which run counter to the goals of the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers.

— David Echols, Kirkland

Bite of bad apples

Liberal types are way too touchy over President Bush's view that the science of intelligent design ought to be taught in our public schools alongside Darwinian evolution. We're a Christian nation and should respect the many Christians who prefer creationism, or at least intelligent design, to the theory of evolution.

In addition, because some of these folks also embrace astrology, Holocaust denial and flying saucerology, we should add those disciplines to the curriculum so students can compare ideas and make up their own minds.

— Jim White, Lake Forest Park

Theology and theodicy

If we are all here as a direct result of God's "intelligent design," those believers have a lot of explaining to do:

We are all put here to do his work but why did he put so many monsters here too, e.g., Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Attila the Hun, Jack the Ripper, etc.?

Why does he continue to allow us to make such a mess of it? Surely he is smarter than that!

It's quite enough to reinforce my belief in Darwin's evolution.

Accidentally yours,

— Jeff Douthwaite, Seattle

Purpose over heaven

People need to stop referring to evolution as "an accident" when comparing it to intelligent design. Evolution occurs when animals with particular traits that make them more resilient/attractive survive long enough to mate and spawn children with similar traits.

It is not random; it is nature's way of improving life. Sounds rather intelligent, actually.

— Angela Boston, Shoreline

The strong survive

The Times reports that Seattle-based Discovery Institute has compiled a list of more than 400 scientists who are skeptical about evolution. This suggests that there is controversy in the scientific community concerning evolution.

There are more than one million scientists in the world (most of whom are working hard to better our lives through improved medicine and technology), and the fact that 0.04 percent of these scientists are "skeptical" is totally inconsistent with the point of view that evolution is controversial.

Or, to turn those statistics around: 9,996 out of 10,000 scientists agree, evolution is scientifically uncontroversial and intelligent design is not science and should not be taught in public-school science classes.

— Dave Morris Bacon, Seattle

Let higher power decide

I understand that some people believe in God (as do I) and that he created everything; I also understand those of science who believe in the evolution of life. What I don't understand is why we have to teach either one of these in our schools.

Leave this to universities to deal with, where students want (and pay) to learn either one way or the other and get credits toward their higher education. That leaves the choice to the individuals without stepping on anybody's belief systems or ideologies.

— Rick Helwick (U.S. Navy, stationed overseas), Oak Harbor

End with a prayer

Intelligent design may end in God. It might also end in the X-files, the Matrix, or the Borg.

Provided no scientist assumes that "intelligent design" means "benign intent," then for my part, I see no reason schoolchildren shouldn't pursue that line of inquiry.

Whatever designed us was really [angry]. Our history is blood-soaked. Whatever part of the globe you choose to study, its history is frequently defined by its wars.

If something designed us and our environment, then we must somehow reflect its tastes, and It likes blood. War is unavoidable under Darwin. Under God, it's just sadistic.

Consider what you do before you rush to teach the children "intelligent design." (The Designer also seems to like poverty and has a healthy appetite for terror.)

— Duncan Dunscombe, Seattle

Mission statements

To stand for nothing

This week's news about the administration's desire to change the name of the war on terror [to "the struggle against extremism"] is very interesting.

It is obvious that the focus groups have been saying that people actually want "wars" to show some clear margin of victory. If they change the name to "struggle," they can explicate our current level of human loss while still branding the conflict for national publication and consumption.

I truly hope the American people don't fall for this ploy, and realize that our government is basically admitting to us that true victory and peace in the Middle East is beyond reach.

As Iraq slips into a possible civil war, our administration is coming up with catch-phrases and slogans to better help them sell us on the current military activity.

We can be sure that none of their upcoming marketing efforts will involve the administration having to confront or explain returning coffins with a slogan or catch-phrase.

— Oliver McMillan, Sammamish

To be misunderestimated

In an Internet statement last Tuesday, al-Qaida's wing in Iraq warned Iraqis not to take part in the constitutional referendum, saying democracy goes against God's law and anyone who participates would be considered an "infidel," and marked for death.

It's laughable to think there are actually Americans, British and other people of democratic countries who think terrorists are committing these acts because of our stance in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And especially when they laugh at President Bush when he calls this a war of good versus evil. Or when he says they hate us for our values.

They don't? Judging by the al-Qaida statement above, I don't think these guys are really that hard to understand, are they?

Or am I just a simpleton like Bush? God, I hope so.

— Ryan Sharp, Seattle

Most endangered game

Two-legged race

In "Call of the wild: cats, bears and us" [editorial column, July 31], Editorial Page Editor James Vesely says, "But I think it is idealistic to believe we can roam with the animals without peril to either side. "

I heartily agree, except that I would replace the word "idealistic" with "unrealistic." Until we value human lives more than those of cougars and bears, this problem will not be solved.

Cougars are especially vicious and will attack without provocation. To my knowledge, grizzlies are the most dangerous bear, but any mother bear with cubs will maul or kill a human.

The population of both cougars and bears continues to increase. We are not encroaching on "the animals' territories." Animals do not have property rights; humans do. We need to do whatever it takes to make humans safe from these predators.

— Maryallene Otis, Lynnwood

Word in stone

Math of Camelot

"A crisis of legitimacy" [guest commentary, July 31] mentions several elections that involved various frauds. Along the way, Daniel Jack Chasan tells us, "Many people have always believed that President John F. Kennedy owed his narrow victory over Richard Nixon in 1960 to the heroic work done by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's machine in turning out the deceased electorate of Illinois."

Although many people may hold that belief, it is certain that President Kennedy did not owe his election to the electoral votes cast by Illinois, whatever the manner he received them. The compilation made by the Senate Librarian, the Congressional Research Service and the Secretary of the Senate, Nomination and Election of the President of the United States (1972) tells us that Kennedy received 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219.

The outcome of the election would not have been changed had Nixon won Illinois' 27 electoral votes. Moreover, as Neal R. Peirce recounts in "The People's President" (1968), "the Illinois electoral board, consisting of four Republicans and one Democrat, certified the election of the Kennedy electors from the state on December 14." He also notes that some vote tampering did take place in Illinois but "Republicans were never able to produce hard evidence to show that fraud had been a big enough factor to give the state to Kennedy."

Repeating unsubstantiated myths does not increase one's confidence in elections or the media.

— John R. Price, dean emeritus, School of Law, University of Washington, Seattle

Body work

Shuts up doc

How dare doctors charge so much for their services! ["Health-cost study: The price isn't right in U.S.," page one, July 14.] Who do they think they are... auto mechanics?

— Thomas Munyon, Marysville