Staff writer Pamela R. Winnick's article on the proposed changes in
standards for teaching science in Pennsylvania's public schools ("Proposed
Rules Boost Teaching for Creationism," Nov. 29) supplies more evidence of
the hysteria with which some scientists approach the questioning of
evolutionary orthodoxy.

    Andrew Petto, editor of the National Center for Science Education,
says "singling out evolution is a sign that someone is trying to raise
doubts specifically about evolution." No kidding! But there are
legitimate, cogent, scientific arguments that are devastating to the
evolutionary hypothesis.

    Don't students have the right to know this? Shouldn't they be exposed
to all the evidence, pro or con? Isn't a liberal education all about
openness and honesty with the facts? Can't we be "pro-choice" in this
matter?

      The shame is that some "scientists" won't even acknowledge the
existence of such. Lawrence Lerner, an emeritus professor from California
State University at Long Beach, resorts to name-calling, labeling the
well-respected Michael Behe, professor of biology at Lehigh University and
author of "Darwin's Black Box," "a screwball" and suggesting that he and
other Intelligent Design theorists are "practicing voodoo"; he is wrong
when he says "no one in the scientific community takes them seriously."

    What about the solid evidence Behe presents? Shouldn't scientists at
least attempt to deal with it?

    Many don't because, as University of California at Berkeley law
professor Phillip E. Johnson points out, many scientists' commitments to
macro-evolution flow from philosophical rather than evidential bases. If
your mind is open enough, you'll be challenged by Johnson's work.

    Ms. Winnick is particularly on target when she acknowledges the
stakes:
One's entire worldview, including one's basis for morality and ethics,
depends upon one's understanding of his own existence. This is why this
question is so vital; this is why the rhetoric is so vitriolic; and this
is why our students must not be railroaded by the evolutionary
establishment.

    BYRON D. HARVEY
    Mercer

    Intelligent design The subheadline of the editorial "Theology and a
Theory" (Nov. 20) reads "Creationism Is About Religion, Not Science."
Professor William Ernest Hocking of Harvard wisely observed that failure
to teach belief in the God of creation is to teach "atheism by omission."

    A science teacher cannot avoid speculation about the origin of the
universe. To present evolution in a purely secular context is to imply
that life developed through blind, unreasoning, materialistic processes,
entirely devoid of intelligent design and willful purpose by an infinite
being.

    Is this what we want our children to believe? Hundreds of thousands of

parents do not, and that is why they are home-schooling their children or
sending them to Christian schools.
    JOSEPH M. HOPKINS
    New Wilmington

    Editor's note: The writer is emeritus professor of religion at
Westminster College.

    Tangled up in rhetoric The article "Proposed Rules Boost Teaching
Creationism" (Nov. 29) advised that Pennsylvania is considering rules to
boost teaching creationism along with evolution in our public schools. The
list of arguments, pro and con, relayed in that article indicate that the
conflict between religion and science has not changed in the 75 years
since the "Monkey Trial" of 1925 in Tennessee.

    In fact, the debate has deteriorated because the longer a conflict
persists, the more it becomes entangled in confused words and ineffective
resolutions. After all that has been said and written on this conflict,
instead of educators and religionists deciding how to present scientific
facts to our children in a moral atmosphere, it looks like we are heading
for another entanglement of words and another ineffective resolution.

    I just hope that the decision-makers will take time to sort out the
facts of evolution, which are as clear today as the mathematics our
children are taught. Even Pope John Paul II accepts the basic facts of
evolution. Just as important, I hope they also will keep in mind that,
although we are a multireligion nation and the tenets of religions cannot
be taught in our public schools, the children can receive specific
doctrines in their homes and religious institutions, with the schools
stressing the rules of good behavior.
    Science and religion do not cancel each other; they complement each
other if properly taught.

    GERTRUDE W. THOMAS
    Oakland

    PG continues to offend Truly, the Post-Gazette is amazing! If the
company I worked for continued to offend a significant number of its
customers, it would be out of business and I out of a job. With its daily
dose of liberal reporting, editorials and cartoons by Tim Menees, the
Post-Gazette somehow manages to maintain subscribers and stay in business.

    The latest offense is Tim Menees' Dec. 4 cartoon suggesting that
public
schools are being revised to Sunday schools because creationism might be
offered as another possible alternative to Darwin's unproven theory of
evolution. Other than conservative Christians, I know of no other group
that is subjected to such regular ridicule and mockery by your newspaper.

    May God help your employees if someday those whom you offend decide
your paper is not worthy of their continued financial support and
subscriptions.

    G.B. DAVIES
    McCandless

POWRÓT