Are you skeptical yet?
Barry Fagin: There you go again. I do understand that you are a magna cum laude from a prestigious Ivy League school and that you received your Ph.D. in computer science from another liberal establishment on the “left coast”. You of all people should be able to understand the science of probability.
It is obvious that you haven’t kept up with new DNA research, but again, that might upset your already perceived agenda of showing us, the average folks, how intelligent you are. It is a constant mystery to me how really, really, intelligent people, as you certainly are, can think that they had something to do with what was an obvious gift from God. Charles Darwin, himself did not have an answer for the principle of “Irreducible Complexity”. Let’s see, did the eye evolve over millions of years?...rendering the organism blind until such time that the eye was finally whole? Aren’t you skeptical? Here’s something you might understand: For the Darwinian model of evolution to be true, computer generated probability (with no agenda) puts the chances at over 10 to the 100th power. Just so the average person can understand; there are less than 10 to the 70th power atoms in the universe. Are you skeptical yet? I will conclude by suggesting that you follow your own advice. Change your mind if your long-held assumptions prove wrong. Don’t be afraid of what others, who think they know it all, may say.
Harvey “Banty” Hoover
Colorado Springs
Evolutionists taking it on faith too
In Dr. Barry Fagin’s “Darwin Day” column, he talks much about intellectual integrity. And you’d think that someone with his credentials would actually know what that means. But he doesn’t seem to. When he says that evolution offered the “first scientific and testable explanation” of life on earth, it makes me ask when and where has it been tested? Two of the pillars of scientific discovery are that something must be observable and repeatable. When has that ever happened? No, the truth is that Fagin — like so many other evolutionists — avoids the single most important question surrounding this controversy: Where did it all start? And don’t tell me the primordial soup. Where did that come from?
Then he goes on to aver that “evolution is a fact”. The dictionary defines fact as “something that actually exists; reality; a truth known by actual experience or observation” none of which applies to evolution. On the other hand, Biblical Creationism cannot be observed or duplicated either; it was a one-time event. Enter faith. For those of us who believe the creation account in the Bible, yes, we take it on faith … and that is intellectually honest. But those who believe in evolution are taking it on faith too. The significant difference is when you look at the intricacies the interdependencies of life and conclude that “it just happened,” you’re not being intellectually honest. When something has obvious design and intent, intellectual honesty must conclude that there was a designer.
What I’ve observed over the years as a common thread when discussing evolution vs. creationism is simply that if one accepts Biblical creation as true, then there must be a Creator. If there’s a Creator, and the Genesis account is true, then the rest of the Bible may be true too. If that’s the case, then we’re accountable to the Creator. That’s the stumbling block. We don’t want accountability; we want to do whatever we want to do.
Fagin says that “Creationism and Intelligent Design … are not testable and powered by ‘wishful thinking’”. I submit that his definition fits evolution to a tee. I leave you with this to ponder: If we descended from apes, why are there still apes?
Mike Thornton
Colorado Springs
Arguments against evolution
Regarding Dr. Barry Fagin’s recent article: His arrogance and condescension continue to amaze, only micro-evolution have been proven by the scientific method, macro-evolution and abiogenesis have not, they are accepted by faith and as dogma. Yes intellectual integrity requires that we change our minds when proven wrong, yet Fagin continues to embrace things that have not been substantiated by observation. There are scientists whose degrees and experience are equal to his that have rejected evolutionism for scientific reasons.
Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, who was doing science for a living when Fagin was in utero, spent decades as an evolutionist, and now describes Darwin as an “antiscientist” who engaged in “lethal antiscience”. His website “Biology Versus Evolution” contains devastating arguments against the theory he used to embrace.
True evangelical Christians, as well as Jews who take the Torah seriously, cannot embrace evolutionism because if the Book of Genesis is not literally true then the rest of the Tenach/Bible is false, evolutionism leads inevitably to atheism. Compromise is not necessary, the Bible is supported by documented fulfilled prophesies, which are more impressive to me as evidence than claims made by scientists whose real motivation is liberation from moral restraints, as Julian Huxley all but admitted. When Fagin says that Intelligent Design and Creationism have not produced anything of scientific value, he is stating his own opinion, one that is not shared universally by all scientists.
Steve Stuart
Colorado Springs
The change owed the USPS
The answer to the Postal Service problem is easy. Congress owes USPS close to $75 billion in overpayments as a result of a 2006 law that requires the USPS to prepay it retirement health care. End the law! And Congress produces the change owed the USPS.
This law is nothing more than going to McDonald’s. The clerk says “$5 for that Big Mac!” You hand the clerk a twenty. They respond with a smile “No sir! That will be another twenty please!”
In reality, the law is one part of a scam intended to suck the lifeblood from the USPS and give Congress a perceptive right to pull the service back into the federal government.
The second part, Congressman Darrell Issa, (R) California, sponsored a bill that would authorize Congress to seize control of the service if it were to miss another payment to this 2006 law. This kind of behavior we have come to expect from some recent Ponzi schemes of late. There seems very little difference between Congressman Issa and Bernie Madoff. They both made off with the cash and do not want to give it back. So, the change please!
M.A. Tkacik
Colorado Springs
Your Privacy Choice