• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Charles King of Boulder writes:

In his brief letter, headlined “Evolution naysayers,” (News, May 9), Charles Buchanan demonstrates a pitiful ignorance of evolution in his mindless opposition to the presidential candidacy of Congressman Tom Tancredo. When Chris Matthews at the recent Republican presidential-candidadates debate asked “Who doesn’t believe in evolution?,” Given thirty seconds to respond Tancredo was one of three who said that they did not.
To answer the question, it should be have been defined by Matthews.
Evolution means different things to different people. . Matthews either revealed his ignorance of evolution or made a vile attempt to influence the so-called “debate” by asking the question in this unqualified way. Many people, perhaps the majority of American voters, think of evolution as opposed to God as the Creator. To most scientists evolution means that organisms and species have over time developed naturally to their present condition. Tancredo summarized his position after the debate iin one short, succint sentence. He believes in evolution as development, but in creationism as the work of a transcendent almighty Creator, not chance.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

So God created primitive algae and trilobites, but the rest came around on their own? Sorry, but you're both trying to put words in Tancredo's mouth, and making even less sense than he does.

Charles King,

First off, only someone profoundly ignorant to the theory of natural selection would equate evolution with "chance". If Tancredo had anything but a reflexive need to pimp himself for the fundamentalist vote , he would've demanded a definition of terms before answering at the very least.

Mathews should have followed up:" If you believe in creation as specified in the Bible, then who/what created the creator?"

Calling someones work pitiful and them mindless in the first few lines: priceless look into your mentality.

As educated, native English speakers, I am positive those three know exaclty what "evolution" means and entails.

I agree with Sharon. It is sad how many "letters" use ad hominem (one of those logical fallacies) arguments to make their points like Charles King does. Matthews might have done a better job in asking the question, but Mr. King destroyed his own credibility.

Charles B said, "Mathews should have followed up:" If you believe in creation as specified in the Bible, then who/what created the creator?"

Why bother with this false question? It sounds profound but it is meaningless. It can't be answered and doesn't need to be once we realize that "existence exists."

What is the alternative? Existence does not exist?

These are just mind subverting maneuvers designed and used for centuries by theologians and other mystics to promote irrational concepts and doctrines.

However, I have no doubt that Mathews asked the evolution question for political reasons. That Tancredo answered it (sort of) for political reasons should not be a surprise. That's how the game is played.

RU Serious -

"However, I have no doubt that Mathews asked the evolution question for political reasons. "

Well, it was a political debate...

RU Serious,

"These are just mind subverting maneuvers designed and used for centuries by theologians and other mystics to promote irrational concepts and doctrines."

The point of the question is to undermine the argument of the theologian/mystic/fundamentalist politician in question by taking their argument to its absurd conclusion, and why not ask it? Did you hear some of the other crappy questions?

"Why bother with this false question? It sounds profound but it is meaningless. It can't be answered and doesn't need to be once we realize that "existence exists.""

People bother with this question because they have substituted Richard Dawkins for the Pope.

Substituted Dawkins for the Pope?
Who did that?

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly