L E T T E R S
EMAIL YOUR LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: INFO@NANTUCKETINDEPENDENT.COM • MAIL: 15 NORTH BEACH STREET
DEBATING A BOOK REVIEW

To the editor:

I had promised myself that my last letter would be just that, but Matt Parker’s letter of October 19th deserves a response.

Unfortunately, in similar fashion to the letter that began this debate, Mr. Parker has again reproduced the work of other intelligent design advocates, namely Phillip Johnson and Raymond Bohlin. Three examples are as follows:

Mr. Johnson writes: “As an explanation for modifications in populations, Darwinism is an empirical doctrine. As an explanation for how complex organisms came into existence in the first place, it is pure philosophy.” Darwin on Trial, 1991.

Mr. Parker writes: “So, as an explanation for modifications in species population, like the finches of the Galapagos, Darwinism is an empirical doctrine. But as an explanation of how complex organisms came into existence in the first place, Darwinism is pure philosophy.”

Mr. Johnson writes: “To Darwinists, evolution means naturalistic evolution, because they insist that science must assume the cosmos to be a closed system of material causes and effects that can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature — by God, for example.” What is Darwinism, 1993.

Mr. Parker writes: “Simply stated, natural philosophy is a belief system which defines all of reality as a closed system of material causes and effects with no influence from anything outside the system.”

Mr. Bohlin writes: “No one has ever observed any lineage changing into another and the few fossil transitions that exist are fragmentary and disputable.” Why Does the University Fear Phillip Johnson?, 1999.

Mr. Parker writes: “The conflict arises when you recognize that the emergence of species by Darwinian evolution is as unobservable as by an Intelligent cause, and the few fossil transitions that exist are fragmentary and disputable.”

Phillip E. Johnson, a born again Christian, is an emeritus professor of American law at UCBerkeley with a B.A. in English literature and a J.D. from the University of Chicago. In addition to being credited as one of the fathers of intelligent design, he has written several papers questioning whether HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Raymond G. Bohlin, who holds a Ph.D. in molecular biology, is the executive director of Probe Ministries, whose mission is “to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through media, education, and literature.”

It seems to me that if one were to try to distance intelligent design from Christianity, these gentlemen would be among the last you would want to emulate. And if one’s purpose is to give intelligent design some scientific footing, a little research into the actual fossil record would be more prudent than blindly dismissing it based on such dubious sources.

Mr. Parker ends with the call for removal of natural philosophy from the public school biology classes, which is vastly different from his original request of the Nantucket school board for “a reevaluation of how evolution is taught in our school system.” This may seem like quite a jump, but it is often the result when one only seeks out likeminded opinions.

Furthermore, Mr. Parker’s claim that natural philosophy denies the existence of an intelligent designer is impossible because science cannot prove the absence of a designer. His continued attempt to portray evolution as simply a vehicle for atheistic thought misses the point of empirical science all together.

And finally, if the Independent allows this debate to continue, I think it would be reasonable to expect a more honest exchange of ideas.

— Matt Mittenthal

WINDMILLS WOULD WITHSTAND BIG STORM

To the editor:

In his Oct. 13 letter, “Wind farm would be vulnerable to storms,” Richard Mullin writes that the recent Gulf Coast hurricanes should worry us about putting wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.

Actually, the risk of hurricanes makes Nantucket Sound an ideal location for offshore wind turbines.

The biggest risk to offshore structures is the force of large ocean storm waves, particularly those from major hurricanes. One of the necessary ingredients in producing a monster wave is a large '”fetch'” — the distance of open water a wave has to form and grow.

Because Nantucket Sound is sheltered, a strong Category 4 hurricane could produce waves there as high as 17 feet. The offshore wind turbines can withstand these wind and wave conditions.

Yet in that same storm, outside Nantucket Sound, several miles offshore the islands or the Lower Cape, you see waves as high as 30 feet or even 50 feet.

Some day technologies will advance and it will be possible to locate wind farms in deeper waters in higher wave environments. Cape Wind will provide needed experience to help make those future offshore wind farms possible.

The real lesson of the recent hurricanes is the risk we face being so dependent upon oil and natural gas for our energy — and on one geographic region to supply it.

— Mark Rodgers Communications Director, Cape Wind