OCR Text |
Show AID Wednesday, August 31, 2005 Vernal Express u Public Forum Letters to the Editor What is your opinion? The Vernal Express welcomes letters from its readers concerning any subject pertinent to the Uintah Basin. There are no restrictions on contents, if not libelous, vindictive vin-dictive and in good taste. The letters need to be a reasonable length, two typewritten double spaced pages. Letters must be submitted exclusively to the Vernal Express and bear the writer's writ-er's full name, signature, phone number and address. Letters for the sole purpose of expressing express-ing thanks to individuals or groups will not be printed in the forum. Letters may be mailed to P.O. Box 1000, Vernal, Utah 84078, faxed at 789-8690 or through email at editorvernal.com. The .name or names of the persons submitting letters must appear on all published letters. All letters let-ters are subject to condensation. Letters express the opinion of the writer and are not necessarily necessar-ily the opinion of the Vernal Express Editor. Revolution Dear Editor, In the storm around evolution evolu-tion and creation there has been a lot of naive understanding on both sides. Once a person told me he would believe in God if it wasn't for evolution, in essence challenging me to disprove it. I replied I couldn't since in my own mind God had created and was still creating through the processes of evolution. In his naivete my friend had dismissed dis-missed evolution as a tool of God. On the other side is an experience of a church member, who worked out at the Dinosaur Monument, being accused of burying the bones in the rock so as to confuse good Bible believing folk. In naivete some people have even suggested that God scattered the bones around to test our loyalty to the biblical revelation about creation. Dr. Harrington's article brought our attention to one of the most convoluted issues we face today faith and science, sci-ence, most importantly the teaching of such matters in the public school system. I must agree with Dr. Harrington that to speak of intelligent design is a statement of faith. I have a strong understanding of how I see God working in the world. While I despair Darwinism, I do follow the 19th century French biologist Jean de Lamarck and his most notable interpreter, inter-preter, the 20th century Roman Cathojjc.anthropologist Pierre Tilhard de Chardin's suggestion of cooperation instead of natural natu-ral selection as the mechanism for evolution. Yet to affirm this approach is not a conclusion I came to based on pure science. It is a conclusion I came to based upon a dialogue between my faith and scientific ideas; a dialogue entered into by way of my faith community. How can a public school system begin to weigh the fine nuances of the various approaches to intelligent intelli-gent design that are now prevalent? preva-lent? It cannot and should not. These issues are for the faith community to wrestle with and to discern, even as we seek God's guidance. Dr. Harrington has committed commit-ted no lapse with her approach. .She is not a doctor who has ;ceased learning. She is a person per-son who represents one part of ;the dialogue and has raised the ;serious question is it right or even prudent to allow politicians poli-ticians to dictate that a faith stance be taught as science without faithful acknowledgment acknowledg-ment that such a conclusion comes from a far broader discussion dis-cussion then the sphere of science sci-ence alone? Rev. David Popham Respect Dear Editor, While visiting family in Vernal, I read Brad Scott's letter let-ter to the editor. As a Christian, I found it very offensive. I have never found a scripture scrip-ture where Christ was rude, insulting, dismissive, or derisive deri-sive to people with whom he disagreed. Christ went out of his way to show love and kindness to persons that others oth-ers rejected or neglected. You save more souls with love than rude criticism. It seems to me that the first thing God would want Christians to do is to emulate his son. When they've accomplished that then maybe their letters to Dr. Virginia Harrington will be written with more respectful disagreement. If Christ returned to Earth today he might ask us why we are fighting over evolution while poverty, homelessness, spouse abuse and child neglect will take the lives of his father's children every day. Life is too sacred to be lost while we argue over its origins. Amanda Dykstra Salt Lake City ' . Different ways of knowing Dear Editor, The goals of religion and science sci-ence differ. Both are noble and good. The goal of science is to determine how the world and universe work. The goal of religion reli-gion is to show our love to God by living good lives, by showing charity and kindness toward others and by following the law of our various religions. Both science and religion possess the ability to improve the quality of our lives, but in different ways. Religion can improve the quality of our spiritual lives so we can give unselfishly of ourselves to others. oth-ers. Science has improved the quality of our lives through medicine, transportation, housing, hous-ing, communications, clothing, food, etc. because its methodology methodol-ogy works. What we know about evolution allows us to combat pathogens by discovering ways to disable or eliminate them. It allows us to understand ecological ecologi-cal relationships and preserve habitats. Our knowledge about evolution allows us to explore genetic relationships and push the frontiers of biotechnology. Science and religion have two different ways of knowing. Science uses observation, questioning, ques-tioning, experimenting, data collection, retesting, and peer review. Religion knows by faith, faith is the way religion tests our belief in God. All religions have creation beliefs that involve one or more gods. Some religions, not all, want their belief in "Intelligent (God) Design" to be taught in science classes along with evolution. evo-lution. The idea of Intelligent Design has several hundred scientists who believe in its concept. For every Intelligent Design scientist however, there are thousands of other scientists who do not accept Intelligent Design as science. The reason these scientists do not accept Intelligent Design is that it does not use good scientific methodology. method-ology. The ED scientists accept an intelligent designer as a given and then interpret data to prove their belief, rejecting anything that does not support it. ID's objections to evolution are based on syllogistic reasoning rea-soning and a highly selective treatment of physical evidence. Their research lacks rigor of experimentation, data and interpretation. Intelligent Design proponents propo-nents call Intelligent Design a theory. It certainly is not a theory the-ory in the scientific sense of the word. A theory in science is not someone's opinion or idea. A scientific theory is a statement or principle devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially ones that have been repeatedly tested, are based on fact, are widely accepted and can be used to make predictions predic-tions about natural phenomena. By its very nature one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or an intelligent designer, design-er, therefore, intelligent design cannot be taught as a competing scientific theory. Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences and the scientific sci-entific evidence is overwhelmingly overwhelm-ingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common com-mon ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is not serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection selec-tion is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically scientifical-ly inappropriate and pedagogi-cally pedagogi-cally irresponsible for creationist creation-ist pseudoscience, including but not limited to Intelligent Design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools. Most scientists are spiritual, spiri-tual, have religious affiliation and or a belief in God, but religion reli-gion is not their work, science is. To ask science teachers to teach Intelligent Design is to pick only one creation belief from among a hundred religions. reli-gions. It might actually be more instructive and enlightening to teach many beliefs, perhaps those of Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Maouris, various vari-ous African tribes, native Americans, Buddhists, Hindus as well as Christians. But then, when would teachers have time to teach science? These beliefs have a more appropriate place in a comparative religion or philosophy class. Our students are already allowed to take religion reli-gion classes (LDS and Christian seminary) during the school day. These religion classes can make sure their beliefs are properly presented to the students stu-dents instead of being interpreted interpret-ed by science teachers. Explanations of how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious reli-gious values, mystical inspiration, inspira-tion, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific. Because science limits itself to natural explanations, expla-nations, and not religious or ultimate ones, science teachers should not advocate any religious reli-gious interpretation of nature. Let science teachers do what they do best teach science and let parents, seminary and church teach religious beliefs. The results will be better for everyone. Dr. Steven V. Romney Vernal Fair support Dear Editor, Without the support of the community there would not be a Uintah County Fair Parade. The fair committee would like to thank all those who took the time to participate in this year's event. Congratulations to those who won ribbons and prizes. We hope to see everyone next year. A special thank you to Wade and Rhonda Olsen for being the Grand Marshals and for giving 25 years of service to the 4-H. Also thanks to Gary Showalter for the use of his car. Ann and Eric Hunting HOW DID SCHOOL SO THIS WEEK I HATE THE TEACHERS 1 HATE, LUNCH I HATE CLASSES I HATE RECESS I HATE THE BUILDING I HATE THE BUS I HATE THE KIDS 1 HATE THE SIDEWALKS AMD i HATE THE 1 AW IMS I WELL ISTHERE ANYTHING ELSE; YOU HATc ? NOPE THAT JUST, ABOUT COycRb IT ALL I J H MHB 1 II r Gin's Gems Support tax on internet pornog raphy By Virginia Harrington Express Writer Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) has been gathering gather-ing data and putting together a legislative proposal pro-posal that would place a hefty tax on internet pornography. Matheson's legislation would put a dent in the expansion of internet "business" and would potentially protect children from its ill effects. Matheson 'isn't alone in his efforts to tight internet pornography. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) (D-Ark.) is also working on legislation that would impose a 25 percent federal tax on the internet pornography industry. Lincoln's bill is titled the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005. One of the problems faced by parents and society soci-ety at large is that these "adult" Web sites are open to anyone. They all have a place to click to assure that the viewer is indeed an adult but they have no way to verify that the viewer is telling tell-ing the truth. The purveyors of this pornography claim that no one can gain a membership into their sites without a credit card. This is true, but a membership mem-bership is not needed to get the sick thrills that come with the free tours of the sites or the brief free movie previews. These alone are enough to do considerable damage to impressionable young children who either go into the sites deliberately or stumble on them accidentally. Can it be an accident? Oh yes, it certainly can. Innocent people can be inundated with pornographic porno-graphic advertising simply by going into another anoth-er site that sells legitimate products. E-mail addresses are routinely traded or sold and many people get a big surprise when they open their e-mail e-mail to find "Sexually Explicit" or "Adults Only" in the subject line. Programs are available to filter out these mass mailings but thej. are not fully effective. Many times they sneak through even the most advanced filtering systems. Right now the only sure way for parents to protect their children is to open all e-mails that come into the home when the children are not present and to get rid of the pornography before allowing the child to sit at the computer. The main danger that comes from exposure, even momentary exposure, of children to these pornographic sites comes from the fact that they go far beyond nudity and sex. They present adult bondage, masochism and sadism as if those suffering suf-fering the pain and humiliation are actually enjoying the experience. The child pornography is even worse and the lasting impressions these leave on young children is beyond imagination. The worst of all of these sites are those that show videos of actual rapes. Yes, videos of real victims with real perpetrators committing horrible hor-rible acts of criminal cruelty. The torturous expressions on the faces of the victims contrast dramatically with the appearance of power, control con-trol and pleasure on the faces of the rapists. Anyone with access to the Internet can enter these sites. No purchases can be made without a credit card, but no purchase is necessary to get the full effects of these hideous Web sites. I applaud Jim Matheson and Blanche Lincoln for their concern and for their efforts to at least diminish this stain on our society. I hope they are successful and I ask all constituents to sup- unscientific Economic development grants available to rural Utah counties Dear Editor, I have been following the commentary on your opinion page concerning the theory of evolution. For anyone interested in learning the facts about just how unscientific the theory of evolution actually is, I recommend rec-ommend a careful reading of the following excellent book: "Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth" by biologist Jonathan Wells who holds two Ph.Ds, one from Yale and one from the University of California at Berkley. Ruth Anderson Vernal The Governor's Office of Economic Development is asking ask-ing rural counties to submit applications for projects to develop small business incubators incuba-tors or infrastructure needed for local economic development projects. Funding is through the Business Development for Disadvantaged Rural Communities Grant Program created through legislation sponsored by Senator Pete Knutson during the last legislative legisla-tive session. Based on recommendations from the Governor's Rural Partnership Board, projects to develop small business incuba tors will have the highest priority. pri-ority. Ed Meyer, Director of the Rural Development Program and staff to the Governor's Rural Partnership Board explains, "Only $250,000 is available, for grants this year, so the Board felt it would be best to focus on small business incubators due to their role in supporting rural entrepreneur-ship. entrepreneur-ship. Rural entrepreneurship is one of the areas identified in a survey of rural Utahns as being a very high priority in every rural county." Meyer notes that the definition defini-tion for small business incubators incu-bators is very broad and can include a wide variety of projects proj-ects providing support for rural entrepreneurs. Though small business incubators will have the highest priority, applications applica-tions for infrastructure such as telecommunications lines, roads, water lines and facilities are also eligible for consideration. consider-ation. Applications are due by October 1st and must be submitted sub-mitted online using a form available at http:rural.utah. gov. A pre-application conference confer-ence will be held on Sept. 7th at 324 South State Street, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, beginning at 1 p.m. Alive After Five AX CAiLtKlG... 'fieOM GlArt Guca WO DOVMt7H 4 i c it rue suhubP's 2ot eiftoiNATZD .-. X i |