Editor, Times-Union: Never have people been so blinded as by Darwin's theory of evolution. Case in point is letter writer Allison Vale's criticism of Charley Reese's recent column stating that evolution is bunk (Oct. 11). Mr. Reese claimed the theory to be inconsistent with science. He supported it with the fact that the fossil record militates against evolution because there are no transitional species; the millions of fossils studied show no gradual change form one species to another. Miss Vale dances around this fact by invoking the so-called punctuated equilibrium corollary, also known as the 'Hopeful Monster Theory.'Ê This holds that whenever evolution occurred it did so in huge increments followed by long periods of inactivity. This necessitated massive spontaneous genetic mutations that resulted in an entire new species. Few evolutionists (and no geneticists) accept this mechanism because they know that virtually all genetic mutations involve negative changes (loss of information), which lead to death of the organism, or neutral changes. Indeed, not enough for reptiles or squirrels to sprout wings. Dr. David Ramp, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, admits that they have yet to find even a single legitimate example of a transition from one species to another.Ê
Biochemist Michael Behe points out that life is irreducibly complex. Below a certain level of complexity, it does not exist. 'Near-life' forms do not exist either. There is no known mechanism to arrive at even the simplest organisms. Single cell species are staggeringly complex. There is more information encoded in a single cell organism than in an entire set of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the processes going on inside this single sell are as complex and diverse as the workings of a small city. A single celled organism is simple only when compared to a higher-level life form such as a mammal.Ê To hold that life (animal and vegetable) arose from the primordial stew of amino acids is patently absurd.Ê
How do amino acids, the building blocks of life, arrange themselves to form complex protein chains, and then spontaneously arrange to form even the simplest life forms? This is in direct contradiction of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is the tendency in nature towards lower complexity, lowest energy state or greatest state of disorder or randomness. For example, your car engine wears out and it doesn't fix itself. The paint on your house fades with time, and wood eventually rots. So how can this chance driven, naturalistic process of life become more complex and ordered, in direct contradiction to a universally accepted scientific principle?Ê Another tough one the evolutionists can't explain.ÊÊ
Regarding the statistical arguments against evolution and its corollary theories, Mr. Reese correctly points out that the probability of it occurring by chance are so small, between 1 chance in 1,047 to 1 chance in 10,440, that scientifically speaking it is zero. Mr. Reese uses noted astrophysicist Fred Hoyle's example placing the probability of evolution occurring as being the same as a tornado whipping through a junkyard and leaving a fully functioning Boeing 747 in its wake.Ê
Miss Vale's letter contained no statements of fact regarding evolution. That's because there are none. She makes an a priori statement that evolution happened. Besides being completely non-scientific, such a position proves Mr. Reese's point that evolution is secular dogma, a philosophic world view. If people choose to believe they evolved from pond slime, palm trees and apes - great, but don't call it science.Ê
While I realize it is expedient and fanciful to think that the hierarchy of living species evolved from simple to complex, there is myriad of scientific evidence why it didn't happen. A helicopter and a hummingbird both have wings, but one didn't evolve from the other. In this age of scientific enlightenment it defies the imagination how this theory can be considered seriously. As more scientists continue to question evolution, it will eventually end up on trash heap of junk science.Ê
Todd Smith, Fort Wayne via e-mail
No Deadbeat
Editor, Times-Union: I am writing in response to a letter that was printed on Oct. 18th, 1999, regarding support payments and deadbeat parents. I happen to be the ex-wife that was spoken of in this article in which it was claimed that I receive one-half of my ex's wages for support, while I only work a part-time job.
This issue was just settled in court, of which my place of employment as well as his, sent in letters/check stubs showing that we BOTH work full-time jobs, verifying our hourly wages and year to date gross wages. I do not receive the equal of $6 per hour for support as she stated, and while it may have seemed to them that I only work part time -Êthe fact is that my daughter, who was born with Down Syndrome, has major medical problems, and is seen each month by her doctors at Riley Hospital, local physicians and Ft. Wayne doctors, therefore, I must miss days of work because of her health problems. This I cannot control, nor do I get paid for work missed.
My ex does not participate in the lives of his children, he has had visitation perhaps one to two times in the last 10 months, and while my daughter tells everyone that she wishes for her daddy to come see her, she doesn't even receive a phone call. He shows no interest in the kids' education, our daughter's medical appointments and needs, and I ask nothing of him other than pay his support obligations. I have gotten on with my life, caring for our children on my own, so WHY, if he does not wish to participate in their lives, can he not leave well enough alone and take the easy way out by paying his support obligation.
I'm not a deadbeat mom, I am not on welfare, and I do have a job, while being a single mother is not an easy job to do, I'm proud to say that my children are worth anything I have to go through to provide them with a loving home and environment.
I'm glad that Kosciusko County is NOT tolerating deadbeat parents for the sake of the children.
Rebecca Vance via e-mail
CCS Says Thanks
Editor, Times-Union: You have seen our ads and heard the concerns of our hearts. We would like to share just how some have helped us to help others. From Sept. 13 to Oct. 15, the children in Mrs. Wentz' "Kids Club" at the First Christian Church of Warsaw have been saving their pennies. There are about 18 children in this class, ages 4 and 5 years old. When it was all said and done, they had raised $164.67 to help those in need in their community. They were studying the book of Esther in the Bible and how she helped to save her neighbors. This was the basis for the inspiration in helping out the people around them. Another story is that of the kids at Washington Elementary School and their principal, Tom Ray. Their goal was one can of food per person, and they not only met that goal, they surpassed it. This is what can be accomplished if we pull together as a community.
We would also like to thank all of you who have contributed to the cause of helping others. The Morris Chapel Church is a good example of how to care for your community. For four weeks they collected items for the "community" food pantry, at Combined Community Services. Each week they were given a different item(s) that they were to bring to the church. One week it was paper products, another soap and cleaning products and another it was non-perishable food items. This ministry raised over $700 worth of food and personal products to help those in need in Kosciusko County.
These are just a few of the examples of how you can make a difference in your community. None of us can do it by ourselves, but when we pull together as one, nothing is impossible. We thank everyone who has joined us in the cause to help our neighbors and may God bless each one who takes a stand to place others first.
