Your Turn Letters to the Editor

The real story of Gwar

I can’t believe you put Gwar on the page that features real artists. Gwar uses corporate art that rips off the real artists involved. At the art exhibit, Gwar wants $30,000 for what is basically a $5 latex mask.

They do not give credit to the artist who made the clay form or the artist who painted it. And still, members of The Slave Pit would put $30,000 in their pocket if they got a chance, never paying the artist or giving credit to the faceless art slaves who created it.

Listen, there is only one Web page that is telling the true story of Gwar made by the local Richmond artists who created them and got ripped off. Visit http://turdzilla.com; Gwar info is at the bottom of this Web page.

– Dave Jensen

Unintelligent design

Any scientist should be offended that someone would dare attempt to claim intelligent design as belonging to the realm of science. One of the first lessons I received in high school biology was the difference between real science, non-science and pseudo-science. Scientific theories comply with the scientific method; they can be tested, they are supported by empirical evidence and, perhaps most importantly, they’re falsifiable. Intelligent design simply does not comply with the scientific method and therefore, like everything else that doesn’t comply with the scientific method, is not scientific theory. Hypothesis? Sure. Theory? No. Never.

People like to look at the evidence toward evolution and point out its faults. They claim this to be a bad thing. But that’s part of science, the fact that a theory can be questioned and that we don’t have to accept it. It’s good that people challenge evolution, but it should be challenged with another equally scientific theory, not intelligent design.

Intelligent design completely lacks empirical evidence. Instead, it’s just a bunch of assumptions that resemble thoughts out off the medieval period. Consider spontaneous generation. People couldn’t explain how some animals reproduced. Therefore, they assumed these things just appeared in these areas based off trite observations. This was wrong. Very wrong. But that’s what happens when you don’t test something. And because of this, intelligent design can’t be falsified either.

As stated, it’s a good thing to challenge evolution, but if you’re going to teach children about science, you need to be consistent. Intelligent design is clearly non-science (and, with the way it’s being promoted, I’d say it’s in the realm of pseudo-science). George Belden, who wrote about Darwinism in the last issue, asks for us to be “logically consistent.” He has a good point there. To say “this is what science is, this is what it’s not,” then to later present something completely contradictory to that is clearly wrong. To teach intelligent design as actual science is logically inconsistent.

– Zachary Palmer