What our Readers Are Saying

Letters to the Editor

This Kedron HOA is not involved in suit

Re: Front page article from Dec. 8, 2004, titled, “PTC ordered to pay paper’s legal fees.”

I am the president of the Kedron Hills Community Association aka Kedron Hills Homeowners Association in Peachtree City. Our subdivision is located off Peachtree Parkway below the Kedron Kroger.

Our homeowners association is not now nor has it ever been involved with any lawsuits or negotiations with developers regarding the proposed development of the Kedron Target or surrounding property.

The Peachtree City Planning Commission invited me to the initial discussion more than a year ago when the project was first announced.

Since we are located so far away from the development, the association made several comments regarding the development and traffic problems on Peachtree Parkway as well as the cart path destruction during development.

Our elementary children go to Crabapple Elementary School and the cart path destruction was an issue.

I formally am requesting that you stop referencing those parties suing or negotiating on behalf of neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development of a Target as the “Kedron Hills Homeowners Association.”

I have made several phone calls to the Citizen trying to clarify this matter. I would like a clarification printed in the next Citizen explaining that the Kedron Hills Homeowners Association is directly tied to Kedron Hill subdivision and is not a party to any legal proceedings.

If any other persons are claiming to be part of Kedron Hills they are fraudulently using our subdivision name and association.

William M Kessler
Peachtree City, Ga.

Coach controversy had positive effect

The article, “Mom’s campaign to fire FCHS head coach loses steam,” printed in the Dec. 8 issue of The Citizen is not accurate.

Needless to say, the media exposure your paper and the AJC provided by covering the story has applied the pressure to the school that is necessary. The FCHS football program will be watched very carefully next season.

Your article and the letters printed brought attention to the situation beyond what I ever thought possible.

I was pleasantly surprised when a coach from another football program outside of Fayette County contacted me and informed me that the news had made it all the way to Athens, Ga.

Parents I already knew and parents I had not had the pleasure of meeting before have reached out to offer their support to ensure our youth receive the dedication and direction needed in our football program.

Even middle school parents with children joining the program next year have expressed concern and their support.

The 2005 football season might be the first successful season in a long time for FCHS. More than likely, the best athletes will be on the field.

Relationships and financial contributions will not play a major role in the makeup of our team (it would be a little obvious next year), even though the Touchdown Club has been very generous and purchased an $8,600 state-of-the art weight machine for the boys, and allocated up to $10,000 for lights to be put on the practice field (by the way, I hope the school system is picking up the electric bill on this).

Please note these gifts alone will not make a good program. Developing players and utilizing the right players on Friday night is what is needed.

Beyond the football program, your coverage has opened a line of communication between parents to speak out on other issues FCHS is experiencing with administration.

The FCHS leadership that has been in place for so long, and is often referred to as the “Good Ole Boy Network,” has been served notice that a new day is dawning. (It is rumored Dr. Warr will be retiring from FCHS at the end of this year. We could only be so lucky).

Now let me clarify, there are some great teachers at FCHS and I have had and have the pleasure of my son being in their classes or tutored by them. But, there are problems at this school that will be addressed.

For parents reading this, I cannot say enough about documenting everything to fall back on. The U.S. Department of Education stated this is key with this school.

Thank you, Citizen, for the hype we needed to get the ball rolling!

P.S. I am Carolyn Michelle Jones for those that are confusing me with Carolyn Lane Jones.

Carolyn M. Jones
cjones@assnhq.com

‘The Santa effect’ a better headline

This is a response to the article, “Why Santa Claus is bad for children.” First, the article was originally entitled, “The Santa Effect,” a much less inflammatory title. If you were going to change the title you should have changed it to, “Why Santa Claus is bad for Christianity.

The reason I know so much about the article is because my son wrote it. I am proud of him for having the courage to speak out against something that has almost completely taken over our celebration of Christmas. It is not easy to take on an icon that is so ingrained in our society that it is likened to taking on religion itself.

In the last few years I have come to understand what he is talking about. Try going to the store and finding an outdoor decoration that depicts the holy family.

You can find any form of blow-up figure that is imaginable from Winnie the Pooh to the Grinch. Pretty packages and Santa’s sleigh are everywhere.

I challenge you, the next time you are driving at night to count how many creches you see compared to Santas and toy soldiers.

To make it even scarier, this is Fayette County, one of the most religiously conservative places I have ever lived.

Why have we moved so far away from the true purpose of Christmas? Why do we all rush to the mall for that picture of our little ones with Santa? Is it possible that Satan, who has a great deal of power on this earth, is just reveling in how lost we have become?

We take nothing away from our children’s ability to imagine and play make-believe by telling them the truth about why we celebrate Christmas.

There are plenty of places for those activities: A good book, a day in the woods, a dollhouse, a play fort. In fact, the truth is so much more thrilling than anything we can make up.

Consider this: In many countries the present-giving day is Jan. 6, “Little Christmas.” This is the day the three kings (Wise Men, Magi), arrived to bring their gifts to the Christ child.

Why don’t we have a King at the mall for children to visit? A Wise man, the one who brought the gold, frankincense and myrrh, the true gift-giver?

Please don’t get me wrong. We have a tree, we give gifts, we even hang stockings. But, there is a creche in our front yard and another one under our tree. We are trying very hard to keep our eyes and our hearts centered on the reason we celebrate Christmas.

Christmas is not about snowmen and lights, it in not about who gets the most presents, it is not about the North Pole and little elves.

When the time comes and we are standing before our Lord, do you think he is going to be in a fuzzy red suit saying, “Ho, Ho, Ho”? He is more likely to be standing there with a tear in his eye as he reviews our Christmases past when we “Hung the stockings with care”, instead of celebrating the birth of the Son of God.

May we all work harder at remembering that Jesus truly is the reason for the season!

Becky Wallace
Fayetteville, Ga.

Finally, the truth about Santa Claus

Thank you for someone finally having the courage to speak their mind openly about Santa.

Ever since my daughter was very young she has known the truth. I agree completely with Tim Wallace and his well-written letter to the editor (Dec 8 issue).

I, too, believe that our children deserve not to be lied to. Why has society created this false god and taken the glory away from the One who so rightly deserves it?

I have stood my ground through years of well-meaning people saying that I was depriving my daughter of the “magic” of Christmas. Excuse me? Where in the world are our priorities? On Santa, toys and greed? What a shame.

I hope that parents will one day wake up to see what a terrible mistake they are making by continuing this “tradition.” Give your children the real story.

Tell them about Saint Nicholas and give them an understanding of how the whole Santa myth got started. Then tell them that some children like to honor Saint Nicholas by pretending that he comes to visit us for Christmas.

It is fun to pretend, all children understand that. But, make it clear that it is just that: Pretend. The focus should always be on Jesus and his birth. Isn’t that the real reason for the season anyway?

Delia Frederick
Peachtree City, Ga.

Blind faith or rational faith: Which is it?

Last week Jason Crain made the statement that faith in general is “based on a lack of evidence, not the existence of it.”

This is true of the blind faiths of most world religions, including humanism, but when it comes to the Christian faith, nothing could be further from the truth.

Faith in the existence of an intelligent Creator is supported by tremendous evidence. The humanist belief there is no God is the blind faith that is held in spite of the evidence.

It would take many issues of your paper to cover most of the evidence but I would like to mention just a few.

Suppose one comes across a book called “War and Peace.” Anyone that does not come to the table with total bias will perceive that the information and the complexity contained in the book is great evidence the book had an intelligent creator.

Carl Sagan vainly hoped for that one intelligible message from space that would “prove” that there was intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

DNA is not just a message, it is an entire language complete with punctuation. DNA tells stories that are far more complex and contain far more information than the book called “War and Peace.” Why is this not considered evidence there is an intelligent Creator behind the existence of the DNA?

The humanist position equates to a faith that the book “War and Peace” had no creator, that it is the result of purely natural, undirected forces.

Which is the faith that is based on the evidence and which is the blind faith that goes against the evidence?

The existence of our life-sustaining planet is a possibility that is so remote, it takes blind faith to believe it is the result of purely natural forces.

There are many factors required for us to be able to live here. Our distance from the sun, the tilt of the earth, the stability of our rotation, the size of our sun, the sun’s distance to the nearest star, the size of the moon, our location within the galaxy, the age of our galaxy, are just a few of the hundreds of characteristics that must be “just right” for life to be possible on this privileged planet.

Even considering the vast size of the universe, to believe that we are here without an intelligent Creator is like having the faith that someone can win the lottery 100,000 times in a row without any special help.

Which is the faith that is based on the evidence and which is the blind faith that goes against the evidence?

The appearance of the “first life” is a possibility that is so ridiculously remote that many humanists are giving up hope of ever finding an explanation based on purely natural forces.

About 40 years ago, mathematical biologist Harold Morowitz calculated that the odds of assembling even the simplest one-cell life out of a primordial soup even under ideal conditions to be 1 chance in 10 raised to the 100,000th power. That is a 1 followed by one hundred thousand zeroes.

While there has been some pushing and pulling on that number over the years, the estimate has never been substantially overturned.

Getting all the chemicals to form the necessary amino acids to form the necessary chains to form the necessary atomic structures to form the necessary cell structures for even the simplest cell to form by natural forces, requires a faith that must be the textbook definition of a blind faith.

Even getting over these overwhelming odds, you would still only have a structure; something (or SOMEONE) still has to get the life going.

Science tells us that life only comes from life. Well, except when they don’t want it to be that way.

Which is the faith that is based on the evidence and which is the blind faith that goes against the evidence?

These are just three of many evidences upon which our faith is based. Believing there is no Creator in spite of the evidence, that is the blind faith.

Pepper Adams
Peachtree City, Ga.

Stem cells: The soul exists, but that’s beside the point in this debate

I apologize, Mr. Crain. I did not mean to characterize your assessment of my argument in a positive light in order to flatter myself. Rather, it was my impression that we were engaged in polite discourse and were acknowledging the merits of each other’s arguments, even if we ultimately disagree.

That being said, I’m very grateful to you for providing many fruitful topics for discussion. The question of souls and their existence is the first.

You may not believe in them, but in a country with democratic principles, you have to take notice of the fact that about 80 percent of people do.

Moreover, every culture throughout history has believed in the soul or in some other similar concept. That may not be scientific proof, but it cannot be dismissed as irrelevant, either.

On a more scientific level, while the soul cannot be proven empirically, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

You believe in plenty of things which aren’t provable by science: human will, courage, friendship, sympathy, and love.

Love is the prime motivating force in the world, binding parents to children, husbands to wives, dogs to bones, etc. Yet, it is utterly unprovable in a scientific sense because it is not made of matter.

A materialist is someone like you who only believes that which is provable by the scientific method. There are many such people around. Some of them, like Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot, didn’t believe in God or love and used their materialist philosophies to justify the deaths of millions. But I digress.

I am a realist. I believe in what reality demonstrates to me. Sometimes science confirms a given reality, sometimes experience does, and sometimes a certain reality has to be taught to me by a greater authority than myself, such as the Bible or the Church.

Whatever you think of the concept of “soul,” the fact remains that something is noticeably different about living things compared to dead ones. Let’s call that difference “life” and distinguish between life and mere matter.

Life is characterized by its animating force. It causes the being it inhabits to move, change, and develop. In the case of humans, the life force is also characterized by reasoning and the higher emotions.

An embryo may not exhibit all characteristics of human life, but it does not lack them absolutely, either. It moves, changes, develops.

At some point, as early as the first trimester, it feels pain. If normal development takes place, it soon achieves at least a modicum of reason and emotion, even before birth.

So, when does the embryo go from being mere life, like a plant or amoeba, to being a human life?

I contend that occurs at conception, when the separate “lives” of the sperm and egg end as they fuse into the single life of the zygote.

You may disagree, and I may call that in-dwelling life a “soul,” but please don’t think that my argument is so easily reducible to whether science says the soul exists or not (if you want to read a philosophical proof of the soul, please consult Thomas Aquinas, although his proofs are generally too long and difficult for most).

Regarding your argument about the one scientist who claims adult stem cells are useless for curing diabetes, I would say the following.

First, that is only one scientist. What does the scientific community say? I bet there are others who disagree with this one guy.

Second, embryonic stem cells have not been proven capable of curing ANYTHING yet. You are someone who requires proof, after all, so I would think this would be an important consideration.

As a reminder, adult stem cells have already been proven to cure over 50 diseases.

Third, even if embryonic stem cells could cure diabetes, it would not make destroying the embryo acceptable.

I don’t care if embryonic stem cells could cure every single disease in the universe. That would not legitimize killing one life to save another because I believe, based on science AND faith, that an embryo is a human life (still not sure what you consider it, though).

Your explanation of Catholicism and the Catechism was pretty good, but you misunderstood my point. I was not implying that what the pope or the catechism affirm as truth is insignificant by calling it the tip of the iceberg.

What I meant was that behind the catechism and the pope’s solemn pronouncements on faith is a mountain of scriptural evidence, theology, philosophy, and teaching tradition.

I agree with the pope on embryonic stem cells not just because he’s the pope, but because the underlying theology and philosophy of his statement is supported by 2,000 years of consistent reverence for the sacredness of life by the Catholic Church.

(By the way, what is so wrong with defending human life? You’d think those of us who are defending the sacredness of all human life were trying to bring smoking back to PTC, or advocating animal cruelty. We are defending the most innocent and helpless of human lives, yet we are marginalized by the press, the media, and the elites as ideological cranks who have some bizarre obsession with pre-born babies. I rather think that those who advocate the killing of embryos, fetuses, and third-term babies have more to explain than us.)

Finally, the concept of natural law is one that used to be taught in all the great universities. I think the fact that you and I, for that matter, were not taught it well in school is one of the root causes of many problems we face today.

Natural law is not the “law of nature” or such physical laws as gravity. Rather, natural law forms the principle upon which our Founding Fathers based our country.

It is the law that governs the right reasoning and action of human beings. It is the law that speaks through our conscience, informing us whether a given action or thought is right or wrong, whether it protects or defends that which is sacred. It is a law written on the hearts of all men and women by God.

Our success as individual humans and as a society depend on how closely our actions and our civil laws accord with this law.

One such example of natural law is the notion that it is wrong to take an innocent life. Another example is that a human being is a human being, no matter what stage of development or decay one presently occupies.

When we ignore natural law, or contradict it, there are always negative consequences. If you ignore the law governing proper nutrition by eating too much, you get fat. If you ignore the natural law that proscribes against pre-marital sex, you very often get a disease or suffer emotionally.

If we as a society ignore the natural law’s prohibition against taking life, we suffer in the form of increased callousness to life, love, and virtue. With such sociopathic behavior and tendences comes an erosion of liberty and happiness, and perhaps even the fall of a society.

It happened to Rome. It happened to the Soviet Union. It could happen to us if people such as yourself get your way, even if your motives are innocent and compassionate.

God bless.

Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.

Why are our troops being ordered to fight with inferior equipment?

Callous; contemptuous; stunning. These are the terms used to describe the remarks that our Secretary of Defense used to answer the complaints of our troops in Iraq. The young man who complained to the Secretary obviously had the support of his 2,300 colleagues, witnessed by the applause he received.

Why are our troops being asked to fight with inferior equipment? Why is there a delay in the delivery of paychecks to the families of our heroes? Why do we have to wait until a brave young man has the courage to ask probing questions before we, the public, are informed of the conditions our young people are facing daily while protecting us?

I am a new resident of Georgia, but I’m sure if the residents of this state were aware of the lack of support that our troops are experiencing in Iraq, we would sacrifice whatever necessary to make sure that they had all that was required to remain alive.

Why aren’t the imbedded journalists reporting what our men and women are experiencing? Why don’t we know the truth?

Red state, blue state, it makes no difference when it comes to giving the best support possible to those who are on the front lines of democracy.

Whether one agrees with this administration is not the issue here. We want our young people as safe as possible in ANY war situation.

Our “experts” have known since this conflict began that the insurgents use bombs that rip open military vehicles. Why hasn’t some company been given the contract to put armor on the bottom or military vehicles? Doesn’t Halliburton have the capability to fulfill this need?

The citizens of this country raised millions this past year to support an election. School children and their parents would gladly raise money to support the war effort.

Congress has given this administration millions in support of this war. If it is not enough, tell the people so that we can support our sons and daughters in a meaningful fashion.

We are being led to believe that all is well with the financing of this war. Either the funds are inadequate or being mismanaged. Whatever the problem, fix it! Or get a Secretary of Defense who can!

Sandra Wilkins
Fayetteville, Ga.

With ‘Southerners’ like this, who needs real Yankees?

With Southerners like Michele Hamlin, I wonder, who needs Yankees?

Initially, I thought Hamlin’s diatribe was a satirical account of a Southerner’s dismay with the current state of affairs in the sunny southern South.

But after a little jaw-scratching and bit more scrutiny I do believe she has convinced herself of the righteousness and truthfulness of her pronouncements.

Goodness, for sure I thought Southerners were known for their hospitality, kindness and generosity toward others. Yet in one breath Hamlin proclaims she has assimilated Southern ways and in the next she expresses her hatred toward others. Oh, how sweetly Southern she seems to be.

Obviously she has assimilated “Southern History.” She regurgitates the silliness about the Civil War being fought not over slavery but over state’s rights.

No matter how one distorts and revises the historical record, the only state’s right that the South fought for was the right to own slaves.

And I bet my last Confederate dollar Hamlin finally realized that “many blacks fought on the Southern side” after her 10th viewing of “Gone With the Wind.” Deep down inside I know that Southern girl sure has had some schooling.

And, dear brothers and sisters, if God continues to grace the South with the likes of Ms. Hamlin, let us get down on our knees and humbly beseech Him to bless Dixie with a few more of those other less assimilated (though graceful I’m sure) Yankees.

I know my ad hominem response seems a bit harsh but Hamlin’s scolding of transplanted Yankees is so laughable that I could not help responding like one of those hateful Yankees she so shrilly despises. Yes, we all should take a good look in the mirror once in awhile.

r. j. desprez
Tyrone, Ga.

Real meaning of slogan

I just finished reading the article [containing] the eye-catching, “This skanky Yankee,” [The Citizen, Dec. 1, 2004]. I suspect that this opinion piece will once again stir up the “Yankee go home, Delta is ready when you are, 95 heads north, too” comments from native Southerners.

I can’t say that I blame them after reading this never-ending piece of dribble.

Well, this “Yankees S—-” bumper sticker that so offended the writer is a proudly displayed on many vehicles in Massachusetts and throughout New England.

Can you imagine that? Yankees with “Yankees S—-” bumper stickers?

Well, the “Yankees” that are referred to on this bumper sticker refers to the New York Yankees [baseball team], not those born north of the Mason-Dixon line.

And how do I know this? Because I am from the Boston area, a die-“hahd” Sox fan who also owns this very same “Yankees S—” bumper sticker and a t-shirt with the same sentiment.

It was not my vehicle that you saw the sticker on, but I needed to respond because the writer does not know what the sticker is actually about.

That bumper sticker is not one of hatred toward Northerners, but rather a simple statement of how all Red Sox fans and New Englanders feel about that team from the Bronx.

So now that the writer knows this, he can take his own advice to ”let it go” and move on to other things.

Kathleen Dunlap
Peachtree City, Ga.

PTC should pay tennis center debt

Mayor Steve Brown’s attempt to duck out of the debt owed Peachtree National Bank is a deplorable management position. It will discourage future capital growth loans from any financial institution if Peachtree City walks out on a legal debt owed.

Mayor Brown’s theory of non-obligation centers on the fact that the agency now running the Tennis Center and the Fred Amphitheater is now called the Peachtree City Tourism Association and the debt obligation was incurred under the name of the Peachtree City Development Authority. But both agencies, the PCDA and the PCTA were/are performing the exact same function of managing the Tennis Center and the Fred.

Steve Brown’s reasoning for non-payment is the moral-legal equivalent of incurring a home mortgage under one name, then legally changing one’s name in court and then unilaterally saying all debt incurred previously is null and void because you are no longer that person.

This is hardly a strong legal theory and certainly not a proper moral position for a city leader to stand upon.

This will be a long and expensive legal battle that will only begin not end with the bankruptcy of the old PCDA.

The current Peachtree City Tourism Association should assume this legal responsibility in the following way.

1. Ask PNB to forgive a portion of the debt owed in return for sponsorship or naming of one or both facilities for PNB. This is a win/win for all.

2. Any remaining debt should be paid with any profits from either or both recreational facilities until paid in full.

3. At a minimum, the PCTA or Peachtree City Council should make interest-only payments until operating revenues at PCTA can assume full payment of the debt.

This is an integrity issue for Peachtree City and most importantly for our Mayor Steve Brown. All of us who love living here will be looking for Mayor Brown to do the right thing. Let him know about your feelings in this matter.

Robert L. Peterson
Peachtree City, Ga.

Dane declaims on gays, religion

A couple of questions:

How does it affect your everyday life, that gay people marry?

How do you think fundamentalism in general is affecting our world of today?

Is it a good thing, to rely on your religious beliefs, when your concern is political, thus concerning not only a whole nation, but the entire world?

How is Christian fundamentalism in any way better than that of Islam or other religions?

I am a Danish citizen, born, and living in Denmark. I find it hard to comprehend how the tolerance level of a whole nation can drop to such a low. I am trying to figure this out. From one normal everyday citizen of the world to another. Please help me with this.

I am not gay. The vast majority of my friends are heterosexual. I get along fine with whoever is nice or just indifferent to me. Why is it a problem what other people do, if it is not affecting you or your daily life in anyway? Why ruin whatever joy they have in their lives?

I simply do not understand.

If they don’t get to go to heaven, what do you care?

I totally respect the level of your religiousness, I am sure, and I hope it helps you in your every day.

All the best to you. Really!

Henrik Exler
Denmark

Thanks for funeral home, deputies

I recently lost my beloved wife of 59 years.

Even though I and four children were in a grief-stricken frame of mind, the staff at Mowell Funeral home was very patient with us.

I told them I wanted to give my wife the best since it was the last thing I could do for her.

Mowell staff went above the line of professionalism. They really care not only for the customer but the entire family.

We would like to give our extended thanks to the Fayette County Sheriff’s Department on our journey from our home to the beautiful service at Liberty Baptist Church and to my wife’s final resting place at Westminster Memorial in Peachtree City.

The sheriff’s department showed the utmost respect and professionalism I have seen in a very long time. This makes me very proud to be a Fayette County citizen.

L.C. Glass and family
Fayetteville, Ga.

What’s a harried parent to do about questionable music, TV? Be a parent

One of the most pressing problems facing America today is our moral crisis. There is tolerance of music and television that is morally questionable and overall acceptance of a growing trend of sexual irresponsibility.

TV and movies were once forced to promote plot and have artistic merit instead of relying on sex or violence to draw a crowd. The rich creativity of our entertainers that once drew a crowd has been replaced by smut.

Parents are too busy having to worry about finances and things of that sort to be completely dedicated to their children.

When I was growing up I had a mom home at all times and even a grandparent whom I answered to about questionable behavior.

Now at the end of the day parents are tired and worn out. Most couldn’t tell you how much TV or music their child had watched that day let alone if it was appropriate.

Anyone who watches more than a few minutes of TV a day has seen the indecent materials. In the end, what we’re getting is TV designed for degenerates.

Please be aware of what your children are watching. They are our future and I know you love them dearly.

Parents are adults and children are children. We are there to guide them, not be their best friend. There are parental controls available through Comcast and Direct TV.

I’m appreciative that Comcast has promised to provide them free. Call your local provider and ask for these parental controls.

When your kids have kids of their own then they will thank you for being responsible parents.

Teresa Clark
Peachtree City, Ga.

Remember reason for season

Christmas is upon us once again. The sights, sounds and smells of this most joyous time of the year are upon us.

Christmas is when all of us in Christendom celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

As was foretold, he was born in Bethlehem of Judea. His birth to the Virgin Mary, who was espoused to Joseph, a carpenter from Nazareth, was in a lowly cattle stall. There was no room for them in the inn.

After his birth, his mother wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger.

Over 2,000 years ago, God had sent the Lamb of God, his one and only Son, Jesus Christ, to earth as a tiny baby. This was and is still the greatest gift to all mankind.

Jesus is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Yahweh, Mighty Counselor, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace and Emmanuel, which means “God with us.”

The young couple had gone to be registered in the census as was required for persons to do. The newborn baby would then be a Nazarene.

Shepherds saw a bright star and were led to the baby. Wise men traveled a great distance to see him and brought him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

As we meet and greet old friends, new friends and family members, let us remember to keep Christ in Christmas and be ever mindful that Jesus is the reason for the season.

He was sent to save the world from their sins. For three short years, he would go about preaching, teaching and healing.

May the peace, joy, love and happiness of this most glorious season of Christmas be with you and yours today, as well as the days ahead. And may we let the wonderful feelings of Christmas and its simple message remain in our hearts all year long.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Read Matthew 1: 18-25: Luke 2: 1-20; and Isaiah 9:6-7.

Patti Phillips
Brooks, Ga.

Sticker shock ahead?

Cobb County schools made national news as a result of their decision to provide biology students with a caveat concerning a biology textbook’s presentation of the theory of evolution.

Succumbing to pressure from conservative Christian parents and a petition that gathered some 2,000 signatures, they opted for placing a sticker inside the cover of the text.

It reads: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

A sticker?

I have my own doubts about Darwin’s theory. And I have serious reservations about the philosophy of science that informs the authors of such texts and which stands as the chief “in principle” objection to allowing any form of “creationism” to be taught in the schools.

That philosophy is Methodological Naturalism, which maintains that, by definition, scientific explanations are naturalistic.

This precludes a priori any appeal to Intelligent Design as a possible explanation of observed phenomena, or to poltergeists as the cause of strange bumpings in the night.

On this view, to make any such appeal is to compromise science with religious doctrine — bad thing. Next, you’ll be reading goat entrails and filling Petri dishes with holy water.

But it seems to me that it is at least, in principle, possible that there are, in fact, non-natural or even supernatural causes.

Gilligan’s Professor, ingenious man that he was, made all sorts of mechanical and electronic contrivances having only coconuts and bamboo to work with. A similarly resourceful naturalist, who insists upon limiting his hypotheses to natural explanations, may come up with a coherent and perhaps even plausible explanation of a given phenomenon.

But in the event that the correct explanation involves things never dreamt of in his philosophy, he will have missed the boat entirely, as did Gilligan in nearly every episode.

But I wonder whether any of those good people responsible for the placing of the sticker have considered how this will play in the national news.

I am sympathetic, but I see the move as ripe for parody, the kind of thing that becomes fodder for articles in such satirical publications as “The Onion,” and to devastating effect.

Perhaps the Harry Potter books will be permitted in the school libraries, but not without a sticker inside the cover: “Warning: Reading this book may result in demon possession and full cranial revolutions.”

Perhaps we will witness a burgeoning book warning sticker industry that offers cautionary advice on the works of everyone from Tolkien (“Warning: This book is a work of fantasy”) to Twain (“Warning: This book uses the ‘N’ word”).

Or perhaps “sticker wars” will break out. Unable to remove the anti-evolution stickers from the texts, the opposition lobbies for anti-sticker stickers: “Warning: The sticker below has been put here by people with an extreme right-wing agenda. Please think critically about the warning contained therein.”

It escalates from there, as the original group heads to press with yet a third sticker.

Whether true or not, it is all too easy to imagine those responsible for the petition and sticker as resembling those two-dimensional, hair-in-a-bun versions of fundamentalists offered up by Hollywood.

We laugh at such characters and do not consider their ideas as being even among the contenders for truth, let alone being actually true.

The sticker tactic is easily portrayed as the desperate act of those who, unable to compete in the arena of scientific debate, have muscled their views into the textbook on the strength of untutored popular opinion.

Some would argue that the very claim on the sticker is controversial: “Evolution is a theory and not a fact.”

I take the warning to mean that the process of evolution by natural selection cannot be confirmed by direct observation or experimentation in the way that, say, anyone with an apple tree in their yard can observe the effects of gravity.

True enough. But the theory-versus-fact distinction is insensitive to another distinction: that between good theories and bad ones.

When people like Richard Dawkins say things like, “Evolution is fact, fact, FACT!” perhaps they are overstating the case. But they might argue that much good science may be done given Darwinian assumptions.

According to them, the theory has strong predictive and explanatory power, and enjoys a kind of elegant simplicity and an absence of ad hoc explanations.

They say that it does such an impressive job of decoding an otherwise inexplicable world around us that we may be rational in thinking that the theory has provided us with epistemic access to the fact.

We may challenge these assertions regarding Darwin’s theory, of course. I do, in fact. But my point is that it is possible for a “mere” theory to do just that.

Juries regularly convict and sentence people because they find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and they do so even though none of them was present when the crime was committed. Just ask Scott Peterson.

Until quite recently, with the development of Intelligent Design as a scientific hypothesis, still a fledgling project, creationists have had precious little to offer that, by any stretch of the imagination, could count as science.

Frankly, I sympathize with those who, in the past, have objected to giving equal time to creationism. Unless and until a “theory” meets certain reasonable criteria (such as those above claimed by some for Darwinism), you might as well give equal time to astrology or to the Raelian theory of origins.

Assuming, as I do, the overall truth of creationism (i.e., there is a Creator), then I suspect that one reason why creationists are so far behind in advancing any respectable theories is that they have for too long retreated from the intellectual battlefield and claimed sanctity in their churches, thus embracing various forms of anti-intellectualism.

(Those who are concerned about this intellectual retreat may benefit from an audio lecture by philosopher J.P. Moreland at http://hisdefense.org/audio/jp_audio.html)

Sometimes it seems as though the best that the creationists have to offer is a bumper sticker image of the Truth fish devouring the Darwin amphibian.

Has any Darwinian motorist been forced to rethink his position as a result of falling in behind a car sporting this sticker?

I am inclined to think that a sticker in a book will be equally ineffective.

Mark D. Linville
Fayetteville, Ga.