Pro-evolution debate faulty

Amy Binder and John H. Evans' editorial column about a pro-evolution debate strategy of polite condescension is not only demeaning to thoughtful intelligent design (ID) proponents, but also errs in a few crucial aspects of reasoned argument ("Creating a kinder evolution debate," @issue, July 31).

First, they erroneously conclude that all intelligent design supporters do so simply as a disguise for Christian proselytizing. Many IDers see things like complex organisms, the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, and the absence of fossils with incomplete specific transitions as being too great to ignore. Second, their straw-man argument about the absence of morality within the idea of macro-evolution is, in fact, a logical conclusion —- not a scheme by the church. Intelligent design does not propose evolution did not occur but does propose the hand of a designer in the process itself. Without the designer —- or higher authority —- all morality ceases to exist because moral concepts no longer have an authoritative foundation. Morality is simply reduced to opinion. Some humanists will say society becomes the moral authority. Great, which society? Is your opinion of morality more valid than mine? Face it, without a higher authority, Darwinian survival of the fittest is all we then have.

JON WILHOIT

Marietta

'Where have we been the past eight years?'

A recent letter suggests about drilling for oil that "even though results may not be felt for a few years, [they] will pay off ... later," and that "the threat of drilling now has had the effect of reducing prices" ("We need to drill now to get lower gas prices later," @issue, July 31).

If we are so future-oriented, where have we been the past eight years? Perhaps, beginning eight years ago, conservation and building fuel-efficient automobiles would already have been paying off not only by helping our automakers have fuel-efficient or hybrid cars on the market (as our overseas competitors already have), but also the actual demand for oil would be down.

Threats are vague, but an actual decrease in demand does reduce prices. Yes, we have to do something, but I find it hypocritical to level accusations about not being future-oriented at those who have for years been predicting our current situation.

RICHARD COMMINS

Atlanta

Use tobacco funds the intended way

It seems as though any time we are faced with a budget deficit, there is a cry to increase the tax on cigarettes, which is the most politically correct vice to attack ("Hike cigarette tax to fund state budget gap, save lives," @issue, July 25). If the people we trust to lead would use the money received by the state from the tobacco industry to fund cigarette-related health care costs, instead of funding their pet projects, maybe funds from Medicare would not have to be used.

Not all health costs from cigarette smokers are paid for by taxpayers. Some have private health and life insurance they pay at increased cost because they are smokers.

The state should fund cigarette-related health and cessation programs with the money received from the tobacco industry to reduce these costs. But that would take away from the exorbitant taxes it can collect on cigarettes, so it chooses not to.

BYRON D. WILLIAMS SR.

Jonesboro

Seeing red about traffic-light timing

How expensive does gasoline have to be before anything gets done about traffic-light synchronization? Ten dollars, $15, $20? Ever try to get through Peachtree Road, the Lenox-Phipps stretch, on less than half a gallon of gas? It's impossible, even at 3 a.m. Red, red, red! Time, gas and money.

LARRY ENGLISH

Chamblee