Walter_Mitty

Andrea Neal, conserveative x-tian and the editor of our local fishwrap wrote an amusing editorial in yesterday's paper.

<a href="http://www.indystar.com/article.php?ecolneal04.html" target="_blank">Keeping Up With Science That Goes Beyond Darwin</a>

Naturally, she thinks Behe has it all figured out. Her editorial has so many holes in it it's almost laughable. I wrote her a response pointing out the Behe is just rehashing the old watchmaker arguement, only he's using cells. I also pointed out that this tired old chesnut has been refuted by philosophers for centuries.

Doubt she'll print it because she hasn't printed the other SIX letters I have written her.

If anyone is really bored, her e-mail address is at the bottom of the article.

ex-idaho

I find it very disturbing that she sees humanity going from nothingness to WMD. With that sort of outlook on life we certainly need redemption.

Walter_Mitty

What I find even more disturbing is that she says Behe's theory is one that the "anti-religious" can embrace. Compare that notion to this:

A master creator with a plan for redemption certainly narrows things down to a few religions. I also find disturbing her use of the word "anti-religious". Talk about broad sweeping generalizations.

Walter_Mitty

Or therapy coupled with heavy medication.