Letters and comments for December 5, 2011

By Observer Upload December 06, 2011 08:28 pm
Letters and comments for December 5, 2011

Evolution and science

To the Editor:

The “Big Bang” requires pre-existing solid matter. Therefore, an evolutionist’s belief and faith has to be in eternal matter, and scientists have been unable to isolate and identify any solid inert matter at all.

If people evolved from scum, there is no moral system, and people have no value. What you have and what you are is all you get. Teaching evolution in our schools is resulting in a rapid loss in any moral values. Laws are written to regulate social behavior, but there must be some moral code for right and wrong as a basis. What is ours?

Some people reference a vague natural law. The ancient Romans may have been the first to use that term, and even they recognized that it must have some divine source.

In the Big Bang, all the energy in the universe, this one and any others, would have to have been present in one place. The Big Bang itself would have resulted in a tremendous release/loss of energy.

If there was such an explosion,

wouldn’t the presence of energy be less the farther out from the place where it happened? How does that explain the large stars in the distance?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that “the amount of unavailable energy” is increasing or, per Webster’s Dictionary, “Entropy” is “the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity.”

In other words, the earth and universe are wearing out, not improving, which means that evolution is not scientific.

When evolution is substituted for religion, it in itself becomes a religion. Why do we teach a substitute religion in our schools which has no basis in fact or science?

If there are any “hard” facts, please let me know.

Richard Beverly