Letter to the Seattle Times

(Warning! Evolution commentary below. Proceed at your own discretion.)
During my recent outrage, I got angry enough to write a letter to a local paper, the Seattle Times. For a long time, the only person I knew who wrote letters to the editor of a local newspaper was my grandfather on my mother’s side. Well, to my astoundment, they actually published my letter! It’s really not the most beautiful bit of writing I’ve done, nor do I like it’s logical consistancy much, but here it is. Note that I did NOT choose the title:

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

Notice how I signed with my middle name which was my mother’s maiden name and hence my grandfather’s last name. Definitely channeling the old dude.
For comparison, here are all the other letters to the editor on the President’s remarks on teaching all points of view. I can’t resist it, so I’ll comment on some. And then no more evolution talk for a while and back to the quantum world (well maybe quantum evolution 😉 )

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

This, I think, is my favorite letter. It’s my favorite because it is entirely an argument based on the agendas at work here combined with a beautiful underhand at the end, which basically implies that “Intelligent Design” is not science.

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

OK. Big problems here. First of all no one, most of all scientists are arguing that “the mystery of life must not be swept under the table.” In particular, science is all about bringing mysteries forward. And then investingating them. In the case of the origin of species (which is one of the mysteries of life, but certainly not the only one) the scientists have a robust, non-controversial theory. Called evolution.
Now second of all, “Why are evolutionary supporters so afraid to have “intelligent design” taught alongside Darwin’s theory?” They are not afraid of such a challenge. The problem is that most scientists have looked at intelligent design and seen that it is specifically ascientific. It is simply not science. This is what we are arguing about: whether things which are not science should be taught in a science course at public schools.
“It seems we fight censorship at all costs in this country until it comes to Christianity… then we release the lions.” Would you make the same argument for censureship of teaching astrology in science class? What about spoon bending? See there is a big difference between censorship, and propoganda. We don’t allow our government to tell us all to go to church. Why? Because we are a secular nation. Similarly we don’t allow non-science propoganda, whether it is about astrology, Raelians, Christian Scientists, or radical athiests, into our class room. But, of course you get bonus points for the martyr reference. Everyone loves a good martyr reference.
“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.” Well, for your purposes, evolution is scientific fact. Yadda, yadda, you can never prove blah blah blah. Whatever. You are, of course, free to take comfort in your faith. You are not, however, free to force your faith to be taught as science in my public schools. I also note that you are being a bit flippant to the “Periodic Table of the[sic] Elements.” Note however, that it is exactly this understanding of this same table of elements which allows our scientists today to make progress in curing all kinds of diseases which someday might save your life. Note also that understanding these same elements has given billions more life, by giving us a better world. Think about us scientists, sometime, when you bite into that meal, shipped from who knows where, on trucks built and optimized by scientists around the world. Which is exactly why I take all kinds of comfort in the period table of elements.

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

A pretty good letter. It’s good, but I don’t find the final argument, which is “argument by founding fathers” to be a very pursuasive one. It’s not that it is a bad argument, it’s just that it begs the question “why should we care, today, what the founding fathers thought?” Which is a good question. When do we move beyond those brave beautiful men who wrote some radical things in the late seventeen hundreds? Certainly progress will move. The question is whether we will move with it.

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

(Update: Patrick says this letter is sarcastic. I guess I’m too dense to follow the sarcasm. What follows is what I first wrote about this letter.)The logic here is absurd. I do not advocate teaching astrology. I do not advocate teachng flying saucerology. I also do not advocate teaching Christianity. I advocate teaching secular courses to students precisely because I can respect others having those points of view. Does my respect deminish these disciplines. No, Mr. White, I think being touchy feely about respectiving other’s views is the foundation of our country, not your moral majority Christianity. (Update: Well, is this letter sarcastic or isn’t it? I parsed the second half of the letter as sarcastic and a jab at “liberals” (remember it’s a dirty dirty word) believing all sorts of silly things. But taken with the first half, doh!, it does seem a jab to the heart of the matter.)

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

Why would you publish a letter like this in an argument about evolution and “Intelligent Design?” Because it is exactly the problem that people associate a secular school system with being anti-relgious instead of a-religious. This letter does nothing for me.

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

Well, equating evolution with “improving” is a problem here. But at least the jist of the letter is something like: look there is beauty in evolution. This last line can be seen, of course, as a belief that, while a supreme being is not guiding the world, the supreme being designed this evolution. If you put the being in the cracks, I have no problem with this. But again, please don’t teach it in a secular setting.

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

What the hell? OK, first of all, we are not talking about “universities.” We are talking about public middle and high schools. And students in public school are not “paying.” We, the taxpayers are paying, because, well, you know, like education of society, you know, it like, does lead to an improved society. So now the question why teach either? Well we teach evolution because it is one of the greatest discoveries of modern science and is a unifying theme of biology. Is it the most important thing to teach students? Probably not. Getting the basic scientific method, plus good math, in my humble opinion are higher on my list. Why teach evolution and not “intelligent design”? Listen closely. Because “intelligent design” is not scientific. That first one I mentioned: the scientific method. Yeah teaching that one pretty much rules out teaching the second. Especially when it is a thinly veiled attempt to bring religion into a science class.

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

While this letter is interesting, this doesn’t do it for me either. The problem is that the issue is what should be taugh in public schools. Not what the consequences of such and such a proposition (ID) means. And really, does this argument actually work for people? If I really believe in a being outside of the laws of science, then does his, her, or it’s existence really have anything to do with the kind of universe which the being created?
OK, I’m done. Sorry about that. Like I said, it’s in my family and I just couldn’t resist 😉 For the record, my grandfather was a Republican, I never knew his views on evolution, but he was a scientist who (like his grandson) went to Caltech. When he was at Caltech, he met Albert Einstein. Pretty cool stuff.