Evolution and creationism are both unprovable theories

This is a response to the Feb. 17 letter by Sarah Hartwell. I think, Ms. Hartwell, that you are being just as close-minded as you claim CRS to be. You have already decided that Duane Gish is wrong without hearing out his case. It does not follow that because their view lines up with the book of Genesis, that it is false. It is a non sequitur argument. I have heard folks like Gish argue for creation without ever using a Bible verse. Like many well-known scientists, I stopped believing in evolution based on scientific reasons (anthropology, genetics, thermodynamics, etc.) rather than a religious text.

You also give some weak evidence. The fossil record is missing many important links between various species of "ape-man." Darwin's finch theory was simply oscillating sized beaks, which proves nothing. That's like saying that people oscillating between fat and thin over time means that they are evolving.

The moths in England were fraudulently pinned on the tree, as the photographer admitted. Your demand for proof seems silly. Neither evolution nor creation can be repeated or duplicated, as you have requested. Both will only ever be theories.

I do share your feelings, however, about the location of the debate and would prefer it to be on campus.

Nathan Lentner
electrical engineering sophomore

Evolutionists should be able to prove creationism wrong

One can argue that many evolutionary processes have occurred and can be reproduced. Granted. I have two challenges for everyone in the evolutionary belief system. Your first challenge is to remain calm when discussing what you believe is science. If evolution truly is science, why do you who believe it get so angry with those of us who do not? Is not science a reproducible fact? Then we will observe the facts whether you present your case or not. My second challenge to those who cling to the religion of evolution: Prove to the creation community that God did not create this earth and everything in it ÷ and that only about 6000 years ago.

Michael Yaeger
atmospheric sciences junior

Lack of evidence makes both evolution, creation possible

In response to Sarah Hartwell's defense of evolutionary facts: " ... Numerous skeletons/fossils of prehistoric men and ape-like animals document steps and transitions from ape to human" ÷ The world's leading evolutionary paleontologist, George Gaylord Simpson, admits lack of transitional fossils for the first horse, Hyracotherium to its ancestral order, Condylarthra, saying, "This is true of all 32 orders of mammals" (tempo and mode in evolution). Simpson states, "Possibility for such dispute exists because transitions between major grades of organization are seldom well recorded by fossils. There is, in this respect, a tendency toward systematic deficiency in the record of the history of life (the meaning of evolution). Numerous transitional fossils like Nebraska man (single pig's tooth) and Piltdown man (jawbone/skull) have been proved false by leading evolutionists, including Stephen Jay Gould, in "Natural History."

We have witnessed evolution in action, from natural selection of moths to finches. Creationists accept adaptation and natural selection (microevolution), which hold that species members best able to survive in the environment thrive, while less well-suited members die. This theory of microevolution is supported by observations, while macroevolution explains white moths actually evolved by acquiring various genetic mutations or characteristics, slowly becoming darker.

Designing experiments testing your evidence and reproducing your experimental results is real science. Evolutionists have been able to reproduce the phenomena of macroevolution. The natural intra-species variation (chihuahuas and rottweilers within the canine species) is apparent, documented and reproducible, unlike inter-species evolution. Evolutionists explain these changes are not observable over such short times as centuries compared to millions of years. Given the surprising lack of the number of fossils that should have accumulated over millions of years, evolutionists are asking society to take it on faith.

A religious debate ÷ the lack of sound, compelling macroevolutionary evidence matches the lacking evidence for creation, making creation as plausible a theory. In this case, Ms. Hartwell is right, it does become a matter of religion. Because if one chooses to believe creation, they must acknowledge the existence of a creator, but if one chooses to believe macroevolution, they don't have to face the difficult questions.

Amary Wagner
biochemistry, MCB, psychology senior

Holocaust memorial bad place to voice anti-Israel sentiments

This letter is to address the person(s) that defaced the Holocaust memorial the other day. Someone wrote racist comments on some of the posters during the reading of the deceased. Please do not take advantage of an emotional situation to impose political views on others. Comparing Israeli aggression to Nazi butchery is an insensitive, and to be frank, asinine argument, and perhaps these are the same type of people that wanted the Jews destroyed more than 50 years ago. There are some angry people on this campus, and they need to learn when it is the right time to debate and when it is the right time to mourn. Such views should not be articulated at an emotionally charged memorial, so please stop the Jew bashing. The Holocaust was a horrible crime against humanity. Let us have our time to remember when we lost almost a third of our nation. One third. We repeat the saying "never again." But the hatred has to stop, or it will happen again.

Jacob Levy
pre-business freshman