Rodney Nidever’s letter (Feb. 8cq) complaining about George Kauffman’s support of Charles Darwin states there is “mounting evidence challenging Darwin’s theory.” Only if you focus on intelligent design and its proponents. Stephen Meyer’s factually lacking “Darwin’s Doubt” book is typical of ID literature. His lack of understanding of the Cambrian diversity has been well documented, after all, his Ph.D. was in science history, not paleontology or any other discipline needed to understand that subject.
In his presentation to the Ohio Board of Education trying to get “teach the controversy” in the science curriculum, he submitted data taken from 34 peer-reviewed scientific articles. Twenty-six of those writers said their articles did not advance ID and were pro-Darwin in overall content. And, Judge Jones, a Bush appointee, ruled in 2005 that intelligent design Intelligent Design is religious doctrine, not science.
Then he calls Mr. Kauffman “superstitious.” Best get out your dictionary, Mr. Nidever, you are the superstitious one when you push a world created by some unseen spirit.
Then Brian DeMars, who embraces science (?), jumps in as a “young earther.” Just read the Bible. There are two completely different accounts of creation. There is nothing in Genesis that is scientifically accurate. That was never its purpose.
Norman M. Lambert