Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Finally I get to post again. Actually I've been busy with my bass guitar lessons and other hobbies. I've written two letters to the editor in the past week on two different topics. One on evolution and one on free trade. If they don't get published well then at least they will be here! So with out further adieu here they are.

Dear editor ,
The only way creationist can attack evolution is to first set up a strawman of what a scientific theory is, juxtapose that with their view of intelligent design, and then proclaim that they are on equal footing with evolution ergo their view should be taught along side of evolution.
A scientific theory is in part defined as an observation based on a set of observed facts. OBSERVED FACTS being the key words there. A scientific theory is not any arbitrary ad hoc assertion dreamed up by someone. The observed fact of gravity is described by Einstein's theory of relativity. The fact that microorganisms cause disease is explained by germ theory. Quantum theory explains the nature of subatomic particles. And lastly, the observed fact of increased complexity in organisms over time is explained by the theory of natural selection.
On December the second you printed a letter from Mr George Luce in which he stated that evolution was "wildly counterintuitive". Even if it is, how does that make it untrue? The fact that time is relative is also wildly counterintuitive. Mr Luce continues by saying...

"It is "unscientific" to assume a priori that only the naturalistic theory can correctly explain the data."

Well what other types of explanations are there? Could Mr. Luce give us an example that does not beg the question? I doubt it.

Science deals with what can be tested, not unprovable assertions detached from reality. Saying "god did it" tells us nothing. It makes no predictions and does not help in organizing collected data.

Mr Luce then goes onto claim that teaching evolution in schools violates fundamentalist Christians first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Mr Luce seems to be oblivious to the hierarchical nature of rights. I have the right to practice my religion but not on Mr Luces property if he tells me I can't. Mr Luce also has a right to practice his religion as he wishes. But the last time I checked, the government takes taxes away not just from fundamentalist Christians, but from everyone regardless of what philosophical outlook they have. We could use Mr Luce's own argument and say that we should also teach the native American view of creationism, and everyone else who has views to the contrary.

In fact I'm not against teaching creationism in the schools. I would be all for an, "Archaic Myths and Fairy Tales" class. But the science room is not where it belongs.

And speaking of fairy tales. Mr Luce claims that evolution is "scarcely more plausible than a bizarre fairy tale." What bizarre fairy tale would he be talking about? The man inside the whale, the talking donkey, or the talking snake and magic apple?

Dear Editor,

People who rail against outsourcing need to go back to high school economics class. They start from the flawed premise that the jobs belong to the employees when in fact they belong to the ones responsible for creating the job. There is no such thing as a right to a job.

On December the sixth you printed a letter from Mr. Jim Atteberry in which he expressed his disdain for Chinese goods purchased by Americans. He referred to China as communist and as our enemy. The communist part is true to a degree. However in the past ten years China has been opening up it's markets. They are really a mixed economy which is party capitalist and party communist. Mr Atteberry seems to be concerned about China mentioning that they are our enemy. The fact of the matter is that the more two nations are finically tied to one another the less likely they are to war with each other. If Mr. Atteberry is concerned about China being our enemy then why is he not for making them our friends without even firing a shot? This is what free trade accomplishes. Not only does it accomplish that , but the goods produced in china and other nations give Americans more buying power with their money. What would a television cost if it were made here in America? Two times more or maybe three? And what exactly do you do with that extra money you saved because that television was produced cheaper in another country? You probably save it, invest it, or spend it someplace else thus creating new kinds of employment. But people seem to take the simplistic approach when thinking about this issue. People reason, no jobs is bad, outsourcing means fewer jobs in America, therefore outsourcing is bad. This is fallacious reasoning because they fail to take into account the far greater benefit of increased purchasing power to the entire country. This allows for higher standards of living for both Americans and their manufacturing counterparts in China and elsewhere.

And lastly, Mr Atteberry suggest that the fact that Japan is now number two in car sales in America is a bad thing. How is stiff competition a bad thing? This is good for the consumer. What does Mr Atteberry suggest we do about this alleged problem of Japan taking over the car market? Implement totalitarian force and stop Americans from freely choosing the products they want? Or does Mr Atteberry suggest that Japan move their manufacturing jobs back to their country for the same reasons he rails against American companies manufacturing overseas?


Post a Comment

<< Home