Dear editor:
Our English word atheist is derived from the Greek word atheos: "a" meaning "no," and "theos," which is the word for God, therefore "no God."
It is interesting that while the "new atheists" claim that God does not exist, they tend to be the people most angry at Him. Why are they angry at a God which doesn't exist? These people promote their beliefs with evangelistic zeal. As atheist Richard Lewontin stated: " ... we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Believing in their supposed superior intellect, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett decided in 2003 that they needed a less offensive name. They chose "bright." A "bright" was defined as someone who holds "a naturalistic worldview," which is "free of supernatural and mystical elements." Steven Waldman, introducing the "brights" on NPR, said, "the rest of us would be 'the Dims,' I suppose." What arrogance!
Mr. Nunn accuses those of us who believe in an Intelligent Designer of being "religious zealots," but I do declare, dear Mr. Nunn, you are far more zealous in your faith than I have been. If we were made from stardust as you teach, that would take a miracle, yes? Just as much God making us from the fresh dirt of a new world?
And where do we get these "rights" you think we are taking from you? How is it a "right" to take a human life? You find it "kind," after stabbing a baby to death, to tear it limb by limb from his mother's body? Abortion is OK if you have a "kind" abortionist? I don't find it "kind" in the least!
And has it not dawned on you that same-sex marriage deprives children of the right to have both a father and a mother to raise them? Marriage is the incubator of children. Anyone who has taken Anatomy and Physiology 101 knows that women are made for men, and men are made for women, for the mechanism of the cultivation of the next generation. From where is this "right" to defy nature derived?
I have a list of scientists who have come to realize that "Every thing which begins has a cause for its beginning": the universe began, therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning. Sometime we might discuss these guys who have wised up. In his groundbreaking critique of Darwinism, biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University noted that the reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design has no justifiable foundations. Many important scientists just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. Therefore, they must slough off the incredible workings of the human eye; the vast amount of information held in the human cell; the reproductive mechanism -- all unexplainable by evolution.
So, friend, I vote for saving, rather than destroying, human life; I vote for maintaining natural marriage for the preservation of the human race.
I'm at 501-282-3102.
Pat Pine Darnell
Hot Springs
Editorial on 03/22/2015