Fossil record an embarrassment to theory

I was actually shocked at Gerald Summers' response, "There's plenty of proof, if he'll listen," (Letters, Aug. 14) to the evolution/creation debate about his inclusion of "archaeopteryx," the supposed dinosaur-to-bird, and "Lucy," the supposed ape-to-human.

The problem in macroevolution of the archaeopteryx is that this creature is commonly viewed by paleontologists as simply what it was: a bird, with no evidence whatsoever of dinosaur scales evolving into the complexity of the bird's feathers. And, confusing it all the more is the fact that most of the dinosaurs claimed to be ancestors to birds are found in rocks much younger that archaeopteryx.

As to "Lucy," I will start with the telling quote of evolutionary anthropologist David Pilbeam, who states "Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does how humans came about." It is well-known and agreed upon that "Lucy" was in fact a bonobo-type chimp; at best a form of extinct ape. And, confusing on this one is the fact of numerous fossil findings of Homo erectus, the supposed evolution from "Lucy," being found in layers of geological strata that far and away predate "Lucy." This is all very "old" news, to use a pun, and I'm shocked that Mr. Summers used this "evidence."

In short, from my own love of God's complex creation, the fossil record is the biggest embarrassment to evolutionary theory as more time goes by, and we look to the truth of our ancient beginning, created "after their own kind" in the Genesis record.

Gail Scott

Lake Elsinore

Some out there still care

Jim Ramsdell writes an interesting letter (Aug. 7, "Lately, it seems like no one cares"). I am in agreement with most of what he expresses. It's easy to come to this conclusion, given the sad state of affairs in this world.

I believe a lot of our problems in America came about when the liberals on the Supreme Court decided to separate church/state. We have gone from a country where the Bible was the core of the curriculum to where a teacher cannot even bring a Bible to the classroom and place it on the desk. There has been a real paradigm shift in America when the courts decided to de-Christianize our schools, and now there is no substantive basis for teaching values, morals and ethics. So how do you teach character education?

In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled that humanism is a religion, and I believe now in our schools that we worship at the altar of humanism and Darwinism, and therefore we develop many citizens who lack character and common sense. You can thank the liberals and their legal arm, the ACLU.

Republicans have to take a lot of blame, too. Bush and Cheney and crew have spent billions and billions of dollars like drunken sailors. One example: We are sending billions of tax dollars overseas to combat HIV/AIDS. Instead, how about sending a few thousand retired teachers to Africa to walk the villages, show films, etc. We pay their salaries. This would cost millions, not billions!

Edward Vargo

Temecula

Letters allow generations to learn

I must respond to Bill Wasley's criticism of my letter supporting the foreign phone tap position of our government (Aug. 13). Wasley snidely stated my sentence was nonsensical. My sentence unedited read, "I wonder if the writer would object to the program if a terrorist attack was thwarted by use of the information received by this program and her loved ones were not murdered." Even as edited, the meaning was clear. Further, I understand that Mr. Wasley is a year or two younger than I, and narrowly missed the opportunity to serve his country in WWII, so that learning experience was lost to him.

We all shape our opinions by lifetime experiences and contacts. We octogenarians get a bit surly when our opinions are challenged. I recognize that in Wasley's many letters in The Californian and my many responses.

I hope the coming WWIII will create more slightly right-leaning octogenarians who will continue to submit their opinions to The Californian pages for the benefit of our younger generation, which will be asked to fight this war, probably; with a resurrected Russia and Communist China. Current news makes this possibility more likely -- sooner rather than later.

Paul Puma

Temecula

Fortunately, science isn't based on consensus

Gerald Summers claims that evolutionists are often quoted out of context to prove there are no transitional fossils. Actually, it is Mr. Summers who is misquoting. He wrote that I said, "The theory of evolution fails because no transitional fossils have been found," (Aug. 14). What I did say was "There isn't one for which an airtight case can be made, and evolutionists can be quoted to prove it." This is the "trade secret" of evolution that Stephen Jay Gould wrote about -- the lack of transitional fossils. They want to keep it a secret.

Summers' claim that archaeopteryx is a valid transition belies the evidence. "Archie," as he is commonly called, is a representation of seven specimens, all from Germany and England, where the highest prices could be obtained by evolutionists. While a couple of these fragmentary fossils may be legitimate -- but without any transitional parts -- others appear to be altered. In 1983, scientists studied the two best specimens and concluded they had been tampered with. When asked to use an electron microscope and perform carbon dating, the museum refused and ended the investigation. So much for an airtight transition. And Archie is their best candidate!

Even if most scientists accepted Archie as a valid transition, science is not based on consensus. Believing something does not change reality.

Rick Kellogg

Wildomar