L E T T E R S
LESSONS FROM THE BIG EASY

To the editor:

Nantucket continues to play Russian roulette, as did New Orleans. We know our open ocean beaches are denuded, the sand dunes almost totally destroyed and coastal bank is fast disappearing into the sea. We are still fiddling and Rome will certainly burn!

Burying our heads in the sands will not mitigate future disasters. The people of New Orleans, as well as the agencies of federal government, were fully aware of the vulnerability of their low lying land mass. Yet, they accepted the ongoing neglect to their infrastructure.

They knew that engineering and modern technology could insulate and certainly contain much of the horror that they are now experiencing.

Historically, the same scenario had played out in the Netherlands years earlier. Yet, all governmental agencies — federal, state and local — procrastinated. The money that was not available for prevention then, has been found now, in sums dramatically greater than would have been needed.

The human misery that could have been forestalled is incalculable.

Ten years ago — before houses were sacrificed, before Madaket lost its barrier sand dunes, before our entire coastal bank that faces open ocean stood exposed and vulnerable to rapidly increasing storm surges and erosion, and before the trauma and damage to Tom Nevers, Codfish Park, sewer beds and the coast line were exacerbated — Nantucket was asked to address the issues. It turned its back and buried its head as did New Orleans.

Amelia Beach, circa 1990, and Atlantic City 1995 challenged nature and have won the war.

In 1995, I had pleaded to be given, at my own expense, the opportunity to try that technology. Nantucket closed its eyes. I tilted at windmills. fought to be given permission. I was pilloried by supposed environmental entities that were determined to dissuade me. The monetary and emotional costs to address legal, consultants, petitions and the inferior techniques were overwhelming.

Ultimately, all that I was allowed to build was a primitive, costly, inferior type installation. But, 10 years later, I still stand. The homeowners at Sheep Pond and the sponsors of the proposed Geo Tube in ’Sconset did attempt battle, and lost. They got nothing at all.

Be aware! If nothing is done, Madaket homeowners will face a disaster unlike anything we have ever seen. A storm surge, when there is high sea with hurricane driven winds, will drive water inland and cause massive destruction. Land mass as well as properties will be lost to the ocean forever.

Those who still maintain there is no way to mitigate nature should take a trip to Sheep Pond and see how a simple primitive, installation can protect.

They will see that the protection barriers have caused no exacerbation elsewhere. They will be able compare that scene with the other area of Sheep Pond Road. They can note, firsthand, the loss of a landmass that had been vibrant, lush with foliage, and the disappearance of a road with its electric service and utilities. They will be able to empathize with the hopelessness and dismay experienced by homeowners who had been denied the right to protect their property.

Hopefully, what they will now be able to see, along with the beach sand and the lost coastal bank, that there was a lost opportunity to preserve and protect our God given resources.

Nantucket should draw the line in the sand, now, while there is still a slight window.

If not, be sure, the coastal areas will certainly suffer as New Orleans suffers now.

Beach implementation — without drawing the line in the sand, without including an erosion control device with sand dune protection — will be a very, very costly exercise with only limited value.

Cost effective, proven protection should be positioned in all endangered areas, before the fact, as had been done in Amelia Beach and Atlantic City.

Now, New Orleans has no choice but face up to reality. Now, we have a first class example to prove that heads buried in the sand will simply court ultimate disaster.

Will Nantucket learn anything from what they now see in coastal Louisiana?

— Gene Ratner

MOVING FORWARD

To the editor:

When I turned on the faucet this morning and filled my glass with clean Nantucket water, I thought about the hurricane victims wading through the increasingly polluted floodwaters.

I thought of the children and the sick and the elderly who are still trapped in a ruined city and who must be longing for a simple glass of clean water.

When people can’t afford to own a car or buy gasoline. When they can’t find a job that pays enough to set aside a little cash for emergencies. When they can’t find any job, what are they to do when a hurricane threatens their city? How can they evacuate?

We cannot turn back the clock and right the wrongs of the past. All we can do is move forward.

Here on Nantucket, people are already joining together in compassion and love to help the refugees of this terrible storm.

As we do, may we not stop seeing the structural injustice that has made evacuation so slow and so difficult for so many.

Each time we turn on our faucets to get a glass of clean Nantucket water, let us vow to change the way America treats the poorest of the poor in this country.

— Rev. Jennifer Brooks Minister, Unitarian Church POINT OF LETTER WAS IRRELEVANT

To the editor:

In response to Matt Mittenthal’s Aug. 31 letter to the editor, I admit I did not give proper citation on a portion of my letter, drawn in part from an editorial by Dr. Stephen Meyer and John Campbell in an Aug. 14th letter of USA Today entitled “Evolution: Debate It.”

But, this is irrelevant to the central premise of my letter, which was to encourage thoughtful criticism of evolution in our classrooms.

This is typical of close-minded evolutionists who prefer to attack the person making the argument on a circumstantial detail than to deal with the substance of the argument.

This is known as the fallacy of an ad hominem argument which first attacks the character of the author as a diversion and then attempts to claim this is evidence against the central argument the person is making.

Insufficient citation on my part has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the argument to expose students to the scientific disputes of Darwinian evolution in the classroom.

Mr. Mittenthal attempts to dismiss the problems of evolution as mere “talking points.” But at some point, proponents of the status quo must actually deal with the fundamental issues. These issues remain, which include the “irreducible complexity” of biological systems where multiple systems would have to have arisen simultaneously within the cell, which is contrary to the incremental Darwinian approach of evolution.

The new knowledge of DNA code as an information system is more complex than anything ever devised by humanity’s best minds — and a plausible explanation of the evolutionary source of such an amazing genetic instruction manual.

The question of the Cambrian explosion and the sudden emergence of practically all the animal phyla without the existence of any earlier transitional forms is contrary to the predictions of evolutionary gradualism and the emergence of biological complexity.

And, the notion that over time, through random mutations and natural selection, new complex organs and body plans such as feathers, lungs and eyes were somehow “created” by accident. Not to mention, how did life start in the first place?

This is a discussion which should not be limited to just “the scientific community” as Mr. Mittenthal demands, but should be openly discussed in the classroom.

Why are evolutionists so threatened by exposing evidence which argues against their theory? Honest science should welcome all the evidence and be willing to revise previous explanations based on new understanding.

I am very suspicious of someone trying to confine the debate to a small and prejudiced scientific community, where dissent is often ostracized, while the outdated orthodoxy of 150 years is the only officially approved explanation our children are allowed to hear.

This is reminiscent of Galileo’s discovery that the solar system was more complicated than originally thought and that the earth may actually revolve around the sun.

The Church responded by banning such heretical thought and by throwing Galileo in jail. We deserve better than this today — don’t we?

As polls clearly show, most Americans support the critical thought and discussion intelligent design raises, and should be included in our classrooms.

People intuitively understand evolution, as currently taught, is based on some unscientific philosophic assumptions like “God does not exist!” and is not a coherent theory simply based on the evidence.

We should not “settle” on evolution or intelligent design arguments, but open our minds to all the possibilities.

My point is this may include the existence of an intelligent agent, whom you can call God or a Martian, that’s your choice.

— Matt Parker