Letter: Sun should further explore man’s origins

Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2005 | 7:34 a.m.

Frankly, I am perplexed by the conviction of the editorial board's support for the theory of evolution without printing why your staff believes evolution belongs in school and intelligent design belongs in Sunday school. As an educator I am not interested in hyperbole nor political agendas, but rather an honest discussion of an issue that results in a respectful, well thought out conclusion.

I would think that if an editorial board of a major newspaper such as yours comes out with a specific, unequivocal stance in support of a serious issue such as evolution vs. intelligent design you would also give a respectful discussion of the facts that led you to such a decision.

There are serious, well-researched scientific studies that support intelligent design as a theory. There are also serious, well-researched scientific studies that place evolution in the status of a theory and not an end-all explanation to the origins of life.

Fundamentally, the reason why both are theories and not science is because the scientific method demands a witness (i.e. observable) for something to be classified as science.

I would recommend that the editorial board of the Las Vegas Sun read studies such as "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, "Mere Creation" by William A. Dembski or "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. These texts are not political and are written with respect to science.

Therefore, the board could agree or disagree with the teaching of intelligent design on its merits or lack thereof rather than disagreeing with it because it appears to be an extension of a political agenda (as implied in the editorial's secondary headline, "Voters have the last word when it comes to conservatives who insist on pushing a faith-based concept as a scientific explanation for humanity's origins").

Raymond LeBoeuf Las Vegas

The writer is vice principal of Mountain View Christian Schools.