Online only letters

Intelligent? Discussions about life.

Read past the headlines; it's not junk science

Editor, The Times:

Am I the only one who actually read Bruce Chapman's commentary on intelligent design? Or just the only one who understood it? ["An intelligent discussion about life," Times, guest commentary, April 17.] The barrage of letters attacking it ["Define design," Northwest Voices, April 18] seem to have missed the point entirely, assuming the letter writers read past the headline at all.

Was Chapman arguing to teach intelligent design in the classroom? No. The only mention of school is commenting on the simplicity of Charles Darwin's theory.

Was Chapman arguing that God is responsible for creating the universe? No. In fact, the exact opposite is true: Chapman distinguished the scientific intelligent design (ID) theory from "creationism in disguise" and explained the differences clearly and objectively.

Was he presenting an academic paper to a scientific audience? No. It was an opinion in a newspaper.

Had he presented all the evidence for ID (and the flaws in Darwin's theory), it would have been too long for The Times to publish and too complex for the layperson (including myself) to understand.

As someone who is neither atheist nor believing in God with a capital "G," I am tired of the ID theory being boxed in with creationism and dismissed by both mainstream media and science. I applaud Chapman for continuing to follow scientific evidence, despite what dissenters might say. I hope there are some who can grasp the difference between science, religion and politics.

Scientists are supposed to enter their studies without bias or prejudice and base their findings on evidence, not opinion or preordained conclusions.

— Scott Herman, Bellevue

Evolution still the tops

"An intelligent discussion about life" was anything but. Bruce Chapman fails to recognize that evolution is the foundation of modern medicine and biology. If he or anyone has a superior theory, they had better show some compelling science to back it up.

They'll need to overturn a century of increasingly rigorous testing and experimentation supporting Darwin's basic thesis. They'll need to turn back the still-growing mountain of evidence from paleontology, geology, biology, genetics, and other sciences that all converge on the reality of evolution.

The truth is, the only reason intelligent design creationists attack this theory is to push a religious agenda.

And about those educators who were allegedly silenced because of their creationist beliefs -- the National Center for Science Education has tracked down every case mentioned in the movie "Expelled," and tells the real story on its Web site.

— Dan Green, Seattle

Other moral issues

The pope calling the kettle black

Pope Benedict XVI, while visiting the United States, expressed his regret at "the injustices endured by the Native American peoples and by those brought here forcibly from Africa as slaves."

His point is well taken. These matters are a dark stain upon the United States. However, it takes an almost unimaginable amount of arrogance for the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and the head of the Vatican, to criticize and lecture his host country in this manner and at this time.

Benedict squandered an important opportunity to create an enormous amount of respect and goodwill for himself and his church by criticizing acts by this country rather than to speak humbly and apologetically about such matters as: a couple millennia of official, Vatican-sponsored anti-Semitism, which at least in part greatly facilitated the Holocaust; the role of the Vatican in providing safe passage to fleeing Nazi war criminals; the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades; as well as further crimes and horrific and shameful acts too numerous to list, all committed in the names of Jesus and the Roman Catholic Church.

If I were Benedict's host, I'd make a friendly but urgent request for him to get on the very next flight to Rome.

— J. van de Rhoer, Kirkland

Can we separate church and state?

In "Students get chance to quiz Dalai Lama" [Local News, April 15], Pastor Joe Fuiten commented both on the Dalai Lama being allowed to speak to schoolchildren about compassion and about the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Indeed, it is because of that doctrine that strict constitutionalists believe that faith-based charities should not be allowed to receive tax dollars, nor should tax-free church dollars be used in the political arena for supporting initiatives and political candidates.

You see, Joe, you can't say it's wrong for tax-supported schools to take kids to hear a speaker of any religion while you want your church and its members to be involved in politics. You just can't have it both ways: The church and the state need to stay separate.

It is specifically because of the prolific rhetoric so characteristic of religionists of your ilk that so many folks have a really hard time accepting the teachings of your church or any other.

— David Comstock, Seattle

Focus on the care, not the kill

The provision of community animal services is a proper and legitimate function of municipal government, and a deeply held public concern in King County ["Animal welfare can be done humanely," editorial, April 15].

Even should a private entity be willing or able to take on such responsibilities, the county inevitably will be held responsible for the success or failure of such enterprise. Lack of political commitment and underfunding will continue as the core issues, regardless of who manages the operation.

Euthanasia rates are but one of multiple performance measures in determining a shelter's success. Endless and confusing debates fueled by divisive terms such as "no-kill" or even "limited kill" distract us from the fundamental responsibility of such an enterprise, as well as its promise.

A model animal-care program should focus on improving the health of the animals while they are in the shelter; ensure that animals being adopted are healthy and appropriately placed into lifelong homes; and support programs that prevent animals from entering the shelter in the first place.

Allocating the necessary resources to increase shelter health and adoptions, and decrease intake rates, will naturally bring down euthanasia rates, without compromising the quality of care provided to the animals.

Although a vocal minority insists upon achieving "no-kill" with the stroke of a pen, we can get there best through good public policy-- a commitment of both finances and will -- with enhanced animal care as its motivating force.

— Inga Gibson, Seattle