-- Jonathan Johnson, Atlanta
They're out there
Thank you for a fabulously well-written and closely researched article on the evolution vs. creationism debate ("God vs. Darwin," May 22). Most people don't understand what an elaborate effort is being made to blow smoke in the eyes of the public. I don't know if you'll win any new converts, but I am comforted to know that there are others out there with a clear understanding of all this.
-- Jim Philips, Atlanta
Large and small
I would like to "commend" Kevin Griffis on his wonderfully scathing editorial disguised as cover story reporting ("God vs. Darwin," May 22).
What's ironic is how the charges against intelligent design theory mirror the shortcomings of evolution theory. Griffis states that intelligent design theory is unsupportable through empirical experimentation. That's a fair statement; there's currently no way to test whether some intelligence is behind the similarities between the respective eye structures of fruit flies and humans.
However, the theory of evolution suffers as well in trying to explain the origins of life and of species. Micro- evolution theory, which states that minor changes occur in adaptation to environmental forces, has been supported by research of various quality. But science has yet to observe or demonstrate macroevolution, the emergence of viable, distinctly new species from existing ones.
Thus, macroevolution theory is also "all reasoning and argument," as it assumes that the modest forces of natural selection and the random and usually destructive forces of mutation somehow result in viable new species. In spite of this, macroevolution is not taught as science, something open to critical examination, but as doctrine. To question evolution is considered equivalent to rejecting science itself. That's a pretty dogmatic attitude.
-- Khari J. Sampson, Stone Mountain
Justify the faith
Kevin Griffis: I greatly appreciated your article discussing the ongoing battle between creationism, aka intelligent design, vs. Darwinian evolutionary theory ("God vs. Darwin," May 22). As a science educator, I am concerned where the public awareness is of what is science and what is evolution. The invention of intelligent design to justify the faith of those ill at ease with the vast collection of evidence lined up behind Darwin's theory is just one more attempt to misdirect society from what is truly one of human-kind's greatest ideas and push us back to a reliance on superstition and the supernatural to explain the world.
I'm fortunate enough to teach in an environment where science is untarnished by these arguments. Ironically, it is at a religious school, Holy Innocents' Episcopal School, in Sandy Springs. When I came to the school in 1991 to teach biology, I was sure to explain to the leaders of the school that I would be teaching evolutionary theory as "essentially" fact. I was pleased when the response was: "Well, of course, what else would you do?" (I now teach chemistry.) But it's refreshing to teach in an institution that is intellectually open and free.
Hopefully your article gives your readers some pause for thought and even some education about what is and is not science.
-- Dave Heidel, Roswell
A laugh a minute
I read your article about McKinney and how she now feels vindicated (Fishwrapper, "'No warnings,'" May 22). I have never laughed so hard in my life. I feel sorry for the people reading this article who actually believe what you are saying and I blame you for a giant smokescreen of the truth.
Nobody feels like McKinney is a nut for calling for an investigation. Hell, Pearl Harbor was investigated hundreds of times. People think she is wacko because of her implied rhetoric that W somehow knew exactly what was happening, when it happened, so Dad and his billionaire buddies could benefit. Absolutely no president that has ever taken office would allow this to happen! Get real; she placed the target on her head herself.
She won't get re-elected. She simply has crossed the line too many times here. Her remarks are dangerous and irresponsible.
-- Keith Angell, Alpharetta
Spare the landlords
(In response to News & Views, "Control your tenants or lose your home," May 22): It seems to me that the police and district attorney are trying to make themselves look good by going after the wrong people. If these were really "crack houses," the police would close them down and imprison the dealers in illegal drugs. But they just don't have the evidence or are not willing to do the job right to close it down.
Who benefits and who loses? Well, the police benefit from a new source of assets. The general population doesn't as the dealers are still on the street selling more drugs. The landlords don't benefit, unless you can call losing your property a "win."
Will it make landlords more aware of illegal activities on their property? Not likely; the tenants will simply hide their activities better or move to another location.
Such self-serving policies only enrich law enforcement and the district attorney at the expense of the community. If you can't do the job right, don't take it out on landlords.
-- John Markes, Conway, Ark.
John Sugg: I think you are the best thing to happen to this paper since I have lived here in Atlanta. There was a time when I stopped reading the Loaf completely. Now I'm looking for the new issue each week. I just wish more people in this city would read it. It's the only real news in the city.
-- Chris Heller, Marietta
Just when you thought Georgia's wingnuts couldn't get any crazier...
Of course we should. Bonds are the normal way we pay for lasting infrastructure; civic…
"Bloated, paunchy, laughable combover. I swear, there's a machine that spits these goobers out." _____________________________________________________________…
Do you think the Ga legislature will revive the bill where former mental patients can…
"I do not have the capability to stop the gun lobby at the Georgia General…