The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 10)

/p>

Richard Kirk seems to have missed the point of David Brooks's article. Brooks is clearly not happy about the ascent of Darwinism, yet he recognizes that the preponderance of the evidence supports it and that it is replacing older cosmologies, religion, and even post-modernism as the dominant worldview.

Mr. Kirk also misrepresents sociobiology by suggesting that it offers no answer to why individuals might make heroic sacrifices when there is no apparent benefit to them. Books have been written on this topic, and there is no shortage of appealing and consistent explanations offered by evolutionary biologists.

p>Regarding good and evil, these are clearly human constructs that can easily be grouped with others such as the belief in a personal god who lives in heaven. David Brooks doesn't like this turn of events either, but at least he's trying to get with the program. I suggest that Mr. Kirk do the same. br> -- Abe Grossman br> Pleasantville, New York /p>

One of the great conundrums of Darwinism has always been the teleological dilemma. Evolutionists waste no opportunity to remind the unwashed masses that our existence on planet Earth is not the work of an outside agent possessing a superior intellect. Rather, they and their mentally superior friends insist that the incredible variation and complexity observed in our world can be explained simply by the random interaction of chemicals over vast expanses of time. Furthermore, they tell us, these chance encounters somehow organized themselves without the aid of a master plan or purpose of any kind. The only thing missing from their pronouncements is any proof as to how this might have occurred given that no one has produced an example of a random process capable of pulling off such a feat.

p>One thing has always puzzled me. If everything in this world arrived here without the need for intelligence, why would it be necessary to evolve it? Why do life forms that possess intelligence consider their species more highly evolved than those that do not? Surely, in the Darwinists' metanarrative, blind chance working in tandem with eons of time has produced fantastic results and would have to be preferred over the use of unnecessary byproducts of evolutionary trial and error such as design, intelligence or purpose. So why have they survived as inheritable traits? br> -- Rick Arand br> Lee's Summit, Missouri /p> p>

topics:
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Religion, Islam, Global Warming, Books, Law, Military, NATO, Oil