Final version

[herewiss13]

nwhepcat's response to my latest rant gave me the inspiration to complete the letter to the editor. It's not a great letter, it's about 100 words too short for that...too many scientific points left un-adressed or properly caveated, but it gets the job done. Writing small things is hard. But at least, the falsehoods of the previous letter aren't left completely unchallenged.



Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This doesn't make every opinion equally valid, nor does it justify supporting an opinion with falsehoods. Unfortuately, the author of Thursday's letter denoucing evolution did just that.

Among other major errors, he stated that Archaeopteryx is just "a bird with teeth" like the modern quetzal and hoatzin. However, neither bird _has_ any teeth. If Archeopteryx is just a "bird with teeth", then it's also a bird with clawed forelimbs and a long bony tail, two other characteristics no modern bird shares (save young Hoatzin which have foreclaws). Take away its feathers and Archaeopteryx looks like a tiny dinosaur. How much more transitional does a fossil needs to be?

The author also wrote that mutations cannot be positive or create new information. This is also completely wrong. One counter-example (and there are hundreds) is the existence of a nylon eating bacteria. We even know the exact mutation that allowed the bacteria to break down nylon. This genetic info is both new (nylon was invented in 1935) and positive (to the bacteria).

I appluad the diversity of opinion demonstrated by the Op-Ed page. But opinions backed only by a catalog of mistatements are worse than useless. Thursday's letter no more deserved to be published than one I might write claiming that the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Moon is made of green cheese and that Columbus discovered London.

Comments

[nwhepcat.livejournal.com]

Go you!

One of the things I love about ranting on LJ is that other people can remind us to turn that rant into action by sending a letter to the editor or a bitch to the paper/broadcaster involved (as someone recently encouraged me to do).

Hope it gets published!

[herewiss13.livejournal.com]

It wasn't a nudge to action, it was actual inspiration, ala: There isn't space to explain/defend evolution and refute all his false claims on a point-by-point. So why not slant it to: the man doesn't know what he's talking about and shouldn't be paid attention to any more than anyone _else_ who doesn't know what he's talking about. That serves the same purpose and takes slightly fewer words. ;-)

It was all about changing the angle of attack.

So far I've had pretty good success about getting published. The local paper is evenhanded about point-counterpoint and, frankly, more people write into bash Darwin than defend him (since, as I've discovered, that's the easier task in a letter-format). Actually recieved some calls and letters from creation-nuts after the last one...and we're in Oregon, not the bible belt!

*recovers himself*

So, um, anyway...thanks! ;-)

[jgracio.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty pro science and believe in evolution. Even against the evidence we have. No, not talking about the proof some ID'ers find, but rather some ID'ers themselves. Not all of course, but some.

I mean, really, I know very little about the ID theory but I fail to understand why that should be held against my opinion. Or why shouldn't my opinion be the rule on pretty much anything at all, even things I know next to nothing about.

Just saying of course. :)

Good luck getting your letter printed.

[herewiss13.livejournal.com]

I mean, really, I know very little about the ID theory

That's because they don't have one. ;-)

No, seriously, find an IDer and ask them. The best explanation they'll be able to give (other than the bashing of evolution) will be along the lines of "an unknown something at an unspecified time did an undescribed action; hence: life."

[netcrimes.livejournal.com]

Good job!!! Woo hoo!