A sampling of readers' letters, faxes and e-mail.
God is doubted
Most Read Stories
- UW professor: The information war is real, and we’re losing it | Danny Westneat
- Career advice: End affair with boss, then apply for promotion | Dear Carolyn
- Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order WATCH
- Baltimore police show jarring footage of SWAT shooting
- Elon Musk’s SpaceX on brink of `Wright Brothers moment’ with reused rocket
is greatly exceeded
Editor, The Times:
“Evolution sticker shock” by Huntington F. Willard (Times guest commentary, Dec. 16), is a wonderful class lesson on left-thinking mission creep.
There’s no question that mankind has wondered about its creation since the earliest days of cognitive thinking. And those who study nature have learned much about the relationships of species.
So how did “scientists” take signs and indications of species evolution to making it a “fact”? Atheist overreach and scientific mission creep!
Willard stumbles making his case by using coded phrases such as “evolution is seamlessly linked” and “every biomedical experiment, every tiny advance, every major breakthrough ultimately connects” to the notion that species evolve.
Yes, Virginia, species evolve and they adapt, too. That’s a fact! But what does that prove about the theory of evolution, which embraces so much scientifically unproven baggage? Nothing! And that’s the atheist overreach that is desperate to “prove” that God doesn’t exist.
Maybe Willard’s scientifically limited line of thinking allows him to arrive at that conclusion, but about 275 million Americans seem to disagree.
Alfred Petermann, Bellevue
Heavenly slide ruler
A contributor from the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science once again has trotted out the “philosophy and opinion as science” approach to issues (“Entertaining the notion of a place of wonder,” guest commentary, Dec. 16): Jonathan Witt would have the reader think that the lack of an adequate explanation for life’s complexity is shaking traditional scientific explanations to their foundations. The author’s “best explanation” is intelligent design. That’s it.
No claims are made that a theory of intelligent design exists that allows predictions to be made that can be tested with empirical evidence. That’s because the scientific method does not attempt to answer questions about why we exist and cannot serve as a tool to allow an individual to feel good about their personal philosophy or awe of the complexity of life.
The Discovery Institute’s Center for Science would do a better service to the community by explaining how its “best explanation” holds up to the rigorous methods of science.
Chris Maden, Edmonds
Ends with infinity
If schools are doing their job of teaching children to think, not what to think, then there is no need to teach intelligent design. The questioning nature of scientific inquiry will lead individuals to the place that makes the most sense to them.
Some will totally discount the idea of evolution and continue to believe the literal story of the Bible. Others, like (reformed atheist) Antony Flew, will change their minds, while others will remain steadfast in the random chance of life starting from nothing.
Before I had ever heard of the term intelligent design, I wondered what was there at the “beginning,” and I wondered if “God” was the answer. But then I had to wonder, where did “God” come from?
If it is unreasonable to think life evolved from the primordial soup, why is it any more reasonable to think some intelligence created the first life on Earth? Where did that intelligence come from?
At the end of it all, I am simply left in awe that we are here at all and I therefore act in a way that respects that mystery. And at least with rigorous science, we have the chance to find the answer, and perhaps God.
Michael Dohan, Seattle
Poof in the padding
The Amazing Kreskin, Sigfried and Roy, Harry Houdini none of them have anything on the King County Elections Board (“New look at 573 ballots may close Gregoire gap,” page one, Dec. 16). Now, however, the object seems to be, “Now you don’t see it, now you do.”
The elections board has more sleeves than a school of octopi. They “discover” and keep “discovering” ballots in the strangest places: in the bottom of voting machines, in closets and, of course, out of thin air.
The county looks great beating its breast and crying “mea culpa” for not counting these votes when they should have been. However, according to the election law, they should never have been included.
I’d be a lot more convinced of Elections Director Dean Logan’s sincerity if he were pursuing the missing military ballots as enthusiastically as he is finding phantom ballots now.
It seems the Democrats have to keep looking to get Christine Gregoire that final lead. When they do, then we will hear about the “will of the people” and “closure” and “moving on,” ad nauseam. Until then, how about another lawsuit?
Denny Andrews, Bellevue
Coming up ruses
I was cleaning up my backyard the other day and I found a box with several thousand ballots from the general election. I have done a cursory check and they appear to be properly signed and postmarked. I vaguely remember seeing a county elections van drop a box that must have ended up in my backyard.
Could you tell me where I should deliver these ballots so they can be properly counted in the manual recount?
I’m a diehard Republican and I’m very concerned these ballots will not be counted in time to help Dino… I mean, help guarantee every ballot is counted.
I have great faith in King County election officials and I know no one would ever do anything to steal an election, and you can trust me, too.
Michael Costello, Redmond
Today the air is filled with the sweet, sweet, sound of crying Republicans. “Boo hoo hoo, but I don’t want to count every vote” … “Wah! No fair looking under the ballot box.” I especially love (those) who whine, “Is it any surprise it’s King County where the ballots are being ‘found’?” Nope, no surprise at all. No more than the surprise that King County is where most of them were “lost.”
Howard Hance, Snohomish
Origin is elsewhere
Seattle’s maritime businesses generate about 40,000 jobs and $4 billion per year in economic activity for the people of King County. These findings by University of Washington researchers were highlighted in a recent issue of our magazine, Seattle Industry. In our view, these benefits provide a great return on the public investments required to operate and maintain Port of Seattle maritime facilities.
Imagine our surprise when our publication was referenced in “Creating a visionary future for Terminal 46 and Seattle’s southern downtown” (guest commentary, Dec. 12) that called for residential and retail development to replace the Port’s existing Terminal 46. The author mistakenly attributed to our magazine an inaccurate statement concerning operational costs for the terminal.
T46 is a valuable public asset that helps to generate tremendous benefits for our community. Seattle Industry applauds the Seattle Port Commission for its decision to maintain the terminal as a maritime shipping facility.
Dave Gering, editor, Seattle Industry
Is there a Santa closet?
All of the recent talk about Santa being female in The Times’ letters section raises some interesting implications. If Santa is indeed female, and accepting that Mrs. Claus exists, then it would follow that Santa is a lesbian and that gay marriage is an accepted practice up at the Pole.
Fine with me, but I’d rather not be the one to have to explain all of this to little Virginia.
Rob Kneisler, Issaquah