tgamble

Shouldn't be to hard to respond to at least one or two parts.

Point out that amphibians DO exist and that, not reptiles, is what fish evolved into. Give an example or two of the fossils. Point out that there are many others. That should get people interested anyway.

Point to the human fossil record. Note that creationists can't agree on how to classify the fossils. Compare Gish and Lubenow briefly. Point out that at one point, dogs didn't exist. They had to evolve from none dogs.

[/QUOTE]Darwin himself disavowed his own theory before the end of his life. Dare I go on?
</strong>[/QUOTE]

Point out that this is a total lie that most creationist groups have abandoned years ago. Point out the problems with his own alleged statements (ie. young man, but he was 50). There's a good feedback post on talkorigins for this.

I don't know how many words that will take up but it surely shouldn't be to hard to keep it under 500. Maybe a local physics professor could make a blunt short statement about his knowlege of the 2LOT? Argument from authority yes, but I doubt you can teach thermodynamics in less than 500 words. Maybe give references including URLs.

Just a few suggestions.

Duvenoy

"Another option is to submit a piece as a guest column, which would give me more room to stretch out and provide a fuller treatment of his points. Of course, there is no guarantee that such a piece would even be printed."
------------------------------

Darwin's Finch, you now have the right idea. From an editor's point of view, 'Letters to the Editor' are little more than fluff and filler. What he usually wants are extreme views that are of interest to those who regulary read it, pro or con.

Send the editor a carefully considered, query letter briefly outlining your argument while you prepare your menuscript. In this way, you can probably go a couple or three thousand words. But be sure and tell the editor how long it might be.

If he rejects it, well, it be's that way, sometimes. Query another publication. If he doesn't answer, then throw in 'over the transom'.

All luck!

doov, the occasional free-lancer.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Duvenoy ]</p>

TooBad

How many mistakes is it possible to cram into 15 words? Was he going for the record?

liquid

"the second law of thermodynamics, one of Sir Issac Newton's four basic laws of physics."

damn I missed that! Suffice to say Newton had approximately as much to do with it as I did...

4 basic laws of physics? What are those then?! hooke's law, the ether, orgone and classical mechanics?

TooBad

Yeah, and Issac Newton is the guy who delivers my mail. He knows nothing about science.


[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: TooBad ]</p>

Darwin's Finch

I am adopting Duvenoy's good advice and will submit a lengthier article for consideration. Whether it is published or not, I will keep you abreast of developments and, if anyone cares, will be glad to post here whatever I come up with.

Thanks to all for your suggestions. Keep 'em coming!

TooBad

Look forward to reading it.

Lizard

If you write an essay in response to this cretin, I would not dignify his content by pointing out the scientific errors. It's his whole worldview that's screwed up.

I would take his letter as an example of the woeful scientific illiteracy of the general public and advocate for better science education in K-12 public schools. I also would include the part about being scared of those who are hostile to science teaching their own children science.

Fact is, the world is becoming more and more technologically and scientifically sophisticated. Biotech, biopharmaceuticals, and other fields related to biology are where the future jobs are for kids going to school today, and where the promise of economic prosperity lies for communities that host companies engaged in those burgeoning businesses. To go backward in science education, to ignore what we've learned since 1859 in favor of religious beliefs not based on science is to reject reality.

Our kids need to be educated in science. They will need jobs in a scientific future. Our communities need a community of workers to work in scientific jobs if we want to attract business to the area. That's reality.

In Kansas, we found that people didn't know too much about the science, but they did care about the embarrassment of being known as a backward state because of the creationists on the Board of Education doing what they did. Next BOE election, they voted in a moderate majority, and quality science standards were restored.

Anyhow, in summary, I would not answer the scientific points. First, anybody who knows anything about science already knows what you are saying. Second, anybody who believes in the same worldview as the letter's author will never be convinced. Third, most people just plain don't care about the science. Talk to them about things that affect them directly, I say, like their kids' futures and the economic well-being of their communities.

My 22¢.

IgnorantBliss

Nevada? Hm, dangerously close to the Momo-stronghold, but worth a shot anyway.

I disagree with the idea of making a lengthy article: that affords this elderly (is it just me, or is it always old men who are ignorant and loud about it? tsk... I shouldn't stereotype grandpa like that... even if he is a racist...) gentleman way too much attention and respect.

If it were me, I would take Liquid's rebuttles, bust them out in several short, concise sentences and then ask him what any of what he said has to do with the court's decision regarding the pledge. Politely, of course.

I just hate wasting my time on these guys and dignifying their statements with anything more than a one-liner that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, to anyone with a GED or equivalent, that they're wrong.

beausoleil

I'd say that this guy's mind, like all closed systems, has clearly decayed into chaos.