Intelligent design, evolution and peer review
The Denver Post got it right in the June 25 editorial, “Judge ruled for what’s right.” T.P. Beh got it wrong in a July 4 letter to the editor, as did Wes Nelson on July 14. Beh wants to redefine science; Nelson wants to ignore it.
The Dover decision is not only thorough but extremely well-reasoned. It leaves no doubt that intelligent design (I.D.) is not science. I.D. invokes and permits the supernatural, maintains the tired and false argument of irreducible complexity, and has not gained the acceptance of the scientific community. Beh mouths the agenda of the Discovery Institute (the I.D. think tank) as laid out in their Wedge Document, which says the I.D. movement’s goal is to replace science as practiced – they call it scientific materialism – with “theistic and Christian science.”
Science cannot be redefined by zealots who disagree with its findings. Science limits itself to natural causes to explain natural phenomena. Supernatural explanations may have merit, but they are not science.
Dave Stevens, Littleton
…
Letter-writer Wes Nelson refutes the validity of evolution by natural selection and disregards peer review as a rigorous way to separate good science from bad.
Peer-reviewed science cures diseases, put men on the moon, furthers our economy by driving the wheels of discovery and invention, combats bioterrorism, and feeds the world. Nanotechnology, microsurgery, electronics, agriculture, urban planning – advances in these fields demonstrate the overwhelmingly successful track record of the process. Peer-reviewed science is successful because it approaches the discovery process with integrity and without preconceived notions. It is illogical to condemn peer review as “biased” just because you don’t like the outcome on one topic.
Jeffrey S. Kieft, Denver
The writer is an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.
Relying more on nuclear power for energy
Re: “G8 leaders missing critical issue,” July 14 Timothy E. Wirth guest commentary.
Timothy E. Wirth and Al Gore have written passionately about the need for reduced use of fossil fuels to reduce the growth of global warming and achieve energy independence. However, they are both remiss in not advocating more nuclear power plants. France gets about 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants; Japan, the only nation to be atom bombed, gets about 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear – the same as the U.S.
With regards to nuclear power plant safety, consider the following facts:
1. Chernobyl occurred due to a poor plant design. France, Japan and the U.S. do not use the Russian design.
2. Three Mile Island occurred due to operator error, but no one died.
3. China is building new nuclear power plants.
Rational reduction in greenhouse gas and independence from foreign oil requires nuclear energy. Solar energy and wind turbines are good but cannot solve the problem by themselves.
Len Taigman, Centennial
PUC chairman’s relation to energy industry
Re: “Regulator rambles; industry foots bills,” July 10 news story.
What was neglected in the article related to Public Utilities Commission chairman Gregory Sopkin was the fact that he is a national leader on energy matters, and that is why he is in such demand as a speaker. This is fortunate for Colorado, which benefits from his expertise and the balance he brings to decisions at the PUC. He is open to market solutions like renewable power projects and IGCC clean coal plants.
Innovation in the energy business is very much the province of the private market represented by members of the Colorado Independent Energy Association. Our members have been among the strongest supporters of Amendment 37, renewable projects and IGCC plants.
The irony is that because of the openness of Sopkin and the PUC to bidding, innovation and market solutions, these solutions are now occurring in Colorado in spite of entrenched resistance from utilities.
Nicholas G. Muller, Executive Director, Colorado Independent Energy Association, Denver
Denver metro area’s rising foreclosure rate
Re: “Foreclosures still surging,” July 11 business news story.
The Post’s article reported that “Foreclosures in the seven-county metro area jumped by nearly a third in the first half of the year compared with the same period in 2005.” Various individuals were quoted blaming “loose lending practices,” “No money down … loans,” “people … homes they can’t afford to keep,” etc. Arapahoe County public trustee Mary Wenke noted, “The loans are upside down, and there is no equity in them.”
On Page 3C the same day, the Mortgage Marketplace contained half a dozen ads for loans, with statements such as “107% purchase program,” “debt consolidation to 125% value” and “poor credit OK.”
Do you suppose these two situations are somehow related? Duh.
Henry Blum, Centennial
Education and taxation
The more I think about Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper’s State of the City address last week, the more infuriated I become. While the green initiative is a good start, I was disturbed at the proposed additional tax to fund early childhood education.
While opposing this program may sound mean-spirited to some, is it not rewarding those who bear children without being able to provide for them, and punishing those who may not necessarily have (or even want to have) children? While an argument can certainly be made that early childhood education benefits all of society, cannot another argument be made that birth control does as well?
In light of the passage of Referendum C last year (which I supported), I think this initiative is ill- timed at best and downright dishonest at the worst.
Philip Atkinson, Denver
Premature birth rates
Re: “Rates of premature, low- weight births highest ever,” July 14 news story.
The reasons for these statistics are complex. The disparity in infants born to black and white mothers, for instance, should alert us to the issue of adequate prenatal care for poor and lower/middle-income women.
Not all of the news here is bad, however. Twenty-five years ago, babies born before the 30th week of pregnancy had a low survival rate. Since then, improved neonatal technology, including whole units devoted to newborn intensive care, has dramatically improved their survival rate. My own daughter, born in 1989 at 24 weeks’ gestation and 1 pound, 9 ounces, would probably not have survived a decade earlier. Instead, she would have been counted in the statistics on miscarriages. Today, however, her birth statistics and those of other similarly premature babies are averaged in with all the other births, bringing down the averages in birth weight and gestation.
Despite moderate medical issues, my daughter has done well and we feel most fortunate. For many families, however, the medical expenses of caring for children who would not have survived 30 years ago are overwhelming. Along with better access to prenatal care, we must also improve the availability of medical and educational support for these precious survivors.
Lynn Holland, Denver
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.
Archives: Missed your favorite columnist or the latest Mike Keefe cartoon? Archives available at The Denver Post Online (www.denverpost.com)
