Reggie Rivers column on intelligent design
Re: “Theory, not science,” Sept. 2 Reggie Rivers column.
Reggie Rivers argues that 12-square-foot tile floors discovered in Grand Junction, and proven to be of natural origin, help us understand the debate about intelligent design. From this discovery we learn by analogy that intelligent design is not a “stand-alone” scientific theory, but quasi-science, unlike macro-evolution, which is “true” science.
Both intelligent design and macro-evolution are attempts to understand the real world. They look at the same data and come to different conclusions. That’s what science – and the human search for truth – is about. Rivers is saying nothing more than that his views are right and the people he disagrees with are wrong. That is fine – but to hijack the word “science” for your own preferences is unfair and misleading.
Say, for example, a group of archaeologists is working its way east across northern Africa and comes to some large, triangle-like structures. Some of the archaeologists argue that these “pyramids” must have been formed by nature even though they look man-made. Other archaeologists argue that the structures are too complex to have been formed by nature. They insist that the “pyramids” had to have been intelligently designed. Both groups are looking at the same data but have arrived at different conclusions. It happens every day.
Intelligent-design opponents are insisting that their view is the only one that should be taught; that it is the only one that is scientific; that they are right and their opponents are wrong. But both views should be given a hearing. Those “pyramids” might turn out to be “designed” after all.
Phil Mitchell, Louisville
…
Reggie Rivers describes some rocks that were mistakenly identified as man-made. How would he describe the difference between any of these natural rocks and Mount Rushmore? Did Rivers sit in front of his computer and his column appeared by time and chance – even in time to beat the Denver Post deadline?
Rivers writes that intelligent design is “this dubious ‘scientific’ approach.” I wonder what Rivers would do with this quote from Charles Darwin: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science.”
J.D. Moyers, Centennial
Former Congressman’s opposition to Ref. C
Re: “Referendum C: Democracy in action,” Sept. 5 guest commentary by Dick Armey.
Is parading out-of-state anti-tax advocates the best the opponents of Referendums C and D can do? I am offended by the likes of Dick Armey and Grover Norquist using Colorado as a platform for their “drown government in a bathtub” national campaign.
I, like our Republican governor and a number of Republican state legislators who helped develop and promote Referendums C and D, subscribe to a view that we need to pay for the level of government that is required to have a growing and vibrant state economy. Can anyone make a credible case that our communities and our state economy don’t benefit from high-quality public education and transportation systems?
Mark Tabor, Denver
…
When we the taxpayers voted for a tax increase to pay for transportation, we knew where the money was going to be spent. We knew where the light rail was going to run, and where additional bus routes were going to operate. Earlier, when the spending was not defined, we voted against it. In regards to Referendums C and D, the same thing will apply. Where will the money be spent? If the politicians want C and D to pass, they will have to be very specific as to where the additional money will be spent, or they will be sent back to the drawing board.
Rich Morton, Parker
…
Dick Armey’s column is a fallacious opinion piece by a man who represented Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives before retiring to serve an anti-tax organization. Armey does not live in our state and therefore has no economic interest in how the citizens of Colorado vote on Referendum C. His gratuitous advice on how to vote is ideological.
Armey does pose an important question: “Will the government do a better job spending the money than the workers will?” He does not seem to realize, however, that there are some vital jobs the workers as individuals cannot do – such as build schools and highways, and deal with natural and human disasters.
He employs a fallacious and misleading argument by identifying the supporters as the devils: Democrats, public employee unions, trial lawyers, “far-left political groups, and many others who eat at the public trough.” Against it are the angels, including “most Republicans … and others in favor of keeping government within its fiscally responsible constitutional limits.” What about the Republican governor? What about the Republican who served in the U.S. Senate and is now heading the University of Colorado? The Republicans who support the measure believe, with the Democrats, that it is in the interest of the state of Colorado to pass Referendum C in order to accomplish collective objectives beyond the reach of individuals.
Phillip K. Tompkins, Denver
…
Does Dick Armey of Texas have so little regard for Colorado citizens that he believes we’ll buy his argument that Referendums C and D are tax increases? Referendums C and D provide an opportunity for Colorado not to give tax rebates for several years, after which the tax rate actually will be lowered. The net effect is support for Colorado’s continuing recovery from a nasty economic downturn. Cutting the state’s budget further by continuing TABOR’s rebates means many essential services may be wiped out.
Rodney Muth, Centennial
Are we a civil society?
I am confident that New Orleans will be rebuilt and the country will care for the victims of this disaster. But I have no confidence that we will address the problems this disaster illustrates. The failures leading up to this disaster, during and following make one wonder if we are capable of managing a civil society. I have three questions:
1. Will we act to preserve the natural environment that our well-being and long-range future depend upon?
2. Will we manage our civil institutions so that they provide the protections and infrastructure that people need and deserve?
3. Will we address the problem of poverty that plagues America, or will this suffering persist?
We won’t know for a decade, but in each case I think the answer is no. I am afraid Hurricane Katrina has exposed the growing failure of America as a civil society.
John Zaugg, Denver
Foreign languages
Like most reasonable people, I realize that the U.S. has a problem with illegal immigration. However, what’s disturbing to me is that the issue has carried over to language with some people. Many seem to be offended by any language spoken other than English.
Two quick points to consider: First of all, nowhere in the Constitution is it mentioned that English is the official language of the United States. And second, many American students to are required to take a foreign language in high school and in college.
It would seem that some very wise and intelligent people see the value of speaking more than one language. All this makes one wonder if some people just have a problem with who’s speaking the foreign language.
Chris Sandoval, Arvada
Evacuees or refugees?
Regarding the ongoing debate over the use of the word “refugee” vs. “evacuee” when describing the victims of Hurricane Katrina, one need only turn to the dictionary for clarification.
According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, a “refugee” is “One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution.” Compare that to the definition of “evacuee”: “A person evacuated from a dangerous area.”
It seems pretty clear to me.
Tamara Smith Roldan, Aurora
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
