Letters to the Editor 03/01/2006

To the Editor:

Mr. Dacus’ letter from last week needs a response in regard to his statement that the “intelligent design ... idea (is) bereft of merit, meaningful content or formal scientific investigation…,, that it is a “diabolical religious figment” and “fanaticism” along with the rioting muslims and others who mindlessly destroy. (Do you think religious fanatics are responsible for the many recent church burnings in the South?)

There is a wealth of scientific research available that throws doubt on the theory of evolution as a satisfactory explanation for our existence.

There is a growing list of scientists, now 500 professors, Ph.Ds, etc. from the science departments of universities and colleges all over the world who have come forward to sign this statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for the Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This is from the web site http://www.discovery.org, located in Seattle, (206) 292-0401.

If you visit the site you’ll find informative articles. One is titled “Survival of the Fakest” which begins with the quote “Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?” — Jonathan Wells.

In another article there are references to peer-reviewed scientific articles by believers in evolution stating some of the unresolved problems with the theory. The article ends with “…it is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely. Furthermore, since the scientific evidence needed to settle the controversy is still lacking, it is inaccurate to give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that all scientists have reached a consensus on the issue.”

Respectfully,

Lorene Richardson

•••

To the Editor:

The application of Measure 37 poses a disturbing issue for people whose property might suffer because of the development by those who will benefit from the measure.

I’m not speaking of the emotional concern — the loss of daily joy gained by living in a place where land and environment are held dear because of its nature. I’m speaking of the loss of financial value because of the abrupt change in the landscape.

Consider that for many of us the value of the property on which we live will no longer feature those very things that gave it its value: the countryside, the quiet, the spread of meadow, trees, desert; for many there is the fact of the view — across the desert to the hillsides and to the pristine snow-covered mountains.

In many cases, all that will be lost.

The landscape will have been changed utterly and the marvelous and most attractive views obscured by the building that will take place because of the development granted to owners of property who will make a great deal of money because of Measure 37. (To be sure, I am not speaking of any particular property owner who intends to benefit from the measure; there are those, I’m sure, who will keep the interests of their neighbors in mind. I am speaking of the problem generally.)

That being the case, shouldn’t those whose property will lose value be reimbursed for the loss they will suffer? I suspect that a measure might find its way on to the ballot to address this matter. If there’s going to be a change in land use regulations, shouldn’t such a change be to the benefit of all, not only to those who want to build and develop their properties, but those whose property values will suffer.

Who might have to pay for that reimbursement is perhaps the very same question about who will pay for the costs of Measure 37, where such costs are brought to bear.

Richard Lyons