Learn the law and some science, please
After reading the Sept. 5 letter by Lisa Szatkowski of Huntley, a forceful refutation of her thesis is in order. I'm not quite sure why she continues to advocate the teaching of creationism in the public schools when such curriculum initiatives have twice been determined by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and illegal (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968; Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987).
A more recent Pennsylvania District Court decision (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005) affirmed the unconstitutionality of teaching creation-based science (in this case, it masqueraded as intelligent design) in public schools.
Her commentary is especially confounding with respect to her definition of the term theory. In the scientific realm, "theory" does not refer to unsupported hypotheses or weak assertions.
Theories are generated for the sole purpose of explaining facts. Who in this day and age would find fault with atomic theory, the heliocentric theory of our universe, gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease?
Evolutionary theory is as much or more supported as the aforementioned theories by extensive, time-tested, documentary evidence over a broad range of organisms. It is baffling to me that evolution alone among the natural sciences is subject to such sociopolitical scrutiny by so many in the general public who have no idea what it is or how its many processes operate in nature over time to account for past and present species assemblages and diversity.
Ardent anti-science lobbies and supporters nationwide continually make overtures to state and local legislative bodies and school boards in an effort to control the content of public science education. As a longtime biology instructor, I wish to reiterate that creationism in any form is not science and thus deserves no forum in the science classroom.
Greg Yarnik
Palatine
Harrop should do more research
The Aug. 31 Daily Herald carried a shameless "politically correct" propaganda piece by Froma Harrop in which she complained about efforts to use our abundant coal instead of natural gas and oil.
She says burning coal to generate electrical power produces acid rain, something that was true 50 years ago, but which hasn't been true for years. Even high-sulfur Illinois coal can be burned cleanly today.
She complains about strip mining, saying it involves "mountain removal." It also involves restoration of the area when the mine closes, but she doesn't mention that.
She complains that the current administration opposes ratifying the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which would hamstring industrialized nations, but she neglects to mention that previous administrations did the same.
Non-industrialized nations produce more greenhouse gases than industrialized nations, and they aren't even party to the protocol. Their emissions are rapidly growing so that even if we were to stop all industrial activity (close the country down), there would still be a net increase in greenhouse gases.
Harrop also fails to mention that the majority of scientists, climatologists and engineers involved in the field disagree with the idea that greenhouse gases are a problem.
Prof. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, began a petition drive --www.oism.org/pproject/ -- with a cover letter, the crux of which was, "This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."
More than 19,000 scientists and engineers have signed that petition. What they are saying is encapsulated in a peer-reviewed scientific white paper, "Environmental Effects Of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," at www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm.
Harrop would do well to study that paper. All our energy resources need to be used responsibly. For instance, rather than limiting emissions, the use of coal mined in Illinois was commonly prohibited for years, on the assumption that it produced acid rain. Now more than 71 percent of Illinois coal is burned by out-of-state utilities. Coal-fired plants produce at least 51 percent of the electricity in the U.S. That is not a bad thing.
Peter G. Malone
St. Charles