www.roanoke.com

Viewing creation from a different starting point

Much of what we discuss comes down to definition and perspective. Truth is often contextual, but not relative. It is around noon on Tuesday as I write this letter, but it is still early morning in the western U.S., and already afternoon or even Wednesday in other parts of the world.

Let's please be honest and grow up in our discussions with others. Truth is truth wherever it leads us. If we define evolution as change, then we have no argument, for organisms certainly do change and adapt. If one extrapolates that backwards and looks only for natural explanations, then one begins to define evolution more in terms of origins. That is faith, not science.

I concur with Michael Scott that this is a subject for the philosophy class and even the social sciences ("Intelligent design lacks testable theories," May 2 commentary). We all scientifically study the same data, though from different beginning perspectives. We should allow for someone to start with a different beginning and then scientifically study the observable evidence.

Why are so many Darwinists afraid of someone who starts with a different faith?

Campus Minister Virginia Tech

Don't blame the Dems for Republican sins

J.B. Mixon ("Democratic Congress has failed families," May 5 letter) should be aware that the current energy policy was worked out by Vice President Dick Cheney and the oil company executives behind closed doors. That policy was then passed by the last Congress that was Republican controlled.

Every time the Democrats try to make any positive changes about anything, either the Republicans block the bill or President George Bush pulls out his pen and vetoes the bill or threatens to if it reaches his desk. The Democrats in Congress do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto, so Mixon is putting his blame in the wrong place.

If he's happy with the results of the last seven years of mostly Republican control , then by all means, vote Republican and we'll get much more of the same. That should just about drive this country into bankruptcy and oblivion.

Don't blame Democrats for Bush policies

In the May 5 letter from J. B. Mixon ("Democratic Congress has failed families"), he stated that the Democratic-controlled Congress has accomplished very little during the last year and he blames the Democratic-controlled Congress for increased gas prices, increased unemployment, etc.

Mixon is either uninformed or chooses to ignore that President Bush has vetoed virtually every bill the Democratic-controlled Congress has passed. Mixon also must not have considered that the ill-conceived Iraq war has had a terrible drain on the American economy and has caused the loss of more than 4,000 American lives and more than 20,000 critically wounded.

Mixon should wake up. It isn't the Democratic-controlled Congress that has caused these problems. It is the Bush administration's mismanagement during the last seven years. Vote 100 percent Republican this fall at your own peril.

Fishburn wanted to promote Roanoke

I do not believe we would be discussing J.B. Fishburn's wishes regarding Rockledge Inn had a fire not destroyed it 29 years ago.

Fishburn and his close friend Edward Stone with other business associates constructed the incline, rented and refurbished the Rockledge Inn and built a tall observatory, all in the interest of promoting Roanoke.

Stone admitted that this investment might very well be only for "a patriotic standpoint" (not a profitable venture) as a way of promoting Roanoke. The Incline Co. even considered buying the entire mountaintop so that it could expand the inn because it offered only 12 rooms.

In the end, it did not purchase the mountaintop and, of course, the Rockledge Inn -- which was later the first home of Mill Mountain Theatre -- burned down in 1979.

When Fishburn donated the land to the city, nothing was written expressing disapproval of structures on the mountain. He and fellow business leaders used the mountain as a means to promote the city to the rest of the country, and I believe he encouraged development if it would help Roanoke stand apart from other areas.

A unique design and environmentally certified building could do just that.

A search for the meaning of science

Michael Scott ("Intelligent Design lacks testable theories," May 2 commentary) reinforces the double standard that hinders meaningful discussion of intelligent design theory.

Scott contends that ID is not science because it doesn't fit his definition -- "an orderly and rational investigation of the natural world." Yet, this is but one of many definitions. For example, Linus Pauling, a two-time Nobel Prize winner, defines science as "the search for the truth." Whether or not ID theory meets any particular definition of science is irrelevant.

Scott also suggests that if ID proponents would only "act like scientists," they could publish their research without prejudice. So how do scientists act? According to Scott, they do not "push theological agendas." Yet the revered neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins is a self-described atheist, has written a best-selling book on the subject and offers "A" for atheism T-shirts on his Web site. Is Dawkins exempt from this requirement?

In reality, scientists are no less susceptible to theological bias than anyone else. Advancing our understanding of the origins of life would be better served by an open-minded discussion of all relevant theories without the name-calling and condescension.

A matter of faith is not science

Linda Whitlock errs in writing that intelligent design should be considered science because it is an attempt to explain the natural world ("God, science not exclusive," May 8 column).

Science is a system of acquiring knowledge that requires practices ignored by those who support intelligent design. Science includes observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation and conclusions subject to testing.

ID supporters turn this process on its head by starting with a conclusion about how the world came to be and attempting to find evidence in support of that conclusion. What they've compiled is untestable and/or contradictory to existing evidence, and therefore can be supported only by faith not science.

Executive Director American Humanist Association

Councilman's ignorance no excuse

Ignorance of the law is not a good excuse for Brian Wishneff's participation in the advertisements against Court Rosen before the Roanoke City Council election. How did someone who obviously knows so little about the law and negative campaign advertisements get elected to council in the first place?

Wishneff's poor attendance record as a council member was enough for him to lose my vote. Hopefully he learned from this experience that negative campaigning doesn't help you win.

What were city voters thinking?

Only about 20 percent of registered voters in Roanoke voted and they voted in David Bowers, ("Wishneff-Rosen results may not be close enough for recount," May 8 Virginia section).

What were you thinking? You don't remember his tantrums and storming out of council chambers?

Why didn't the residents of Roanoke vote? Was it because there were no viable candidates? Even so, why in the world would you vote this yahoo back into office.

You will reap what you sow. The only thing is, the rest of us have to suffer as well.