Squeezing the Nickel
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
To the editor: The Metropolis story “Parking on a Dime” (Sept. 17, 2008) by Jeff Prince illustrates the hunger that Fort Worth shows for every nickel and dime they can get. They really know how to squeeze the buffalo off the nickel. And one can wager that this movement toward “screw-you” enforcement in parking is being led by Mayor Mike Moncrief and his troop.
A Case Against Nukes
To the editor: Kendall McCook’s column “Cancer in the Country” (Sept. 17, 2008) got my attention. It ought to be forwarded to the Texas Legislature when they convene in January. McCook has made his case: His evidence would make an effective documentary to be shown coast to coast, anywhere a nuclear plant is operating or being considered.
As we all know, greed for the buck overrides safety and health concerns. With the call for more energy sources, nuclear plants may be popping up like dandelions, with no concern about radiation emitted or waste deposited in the streams and rivers from which we get our water.
Hat-Tip to the Ballet
To the editor: The Weekly’s Sept. 17 story, “Tipping Point,” by Jimmy Fowler and Leonard Eureka is testimony to the devotion, sweat, and tears that the Texas Ballet Theater has committed itself to for its audience. These heroic dancers and staff and those contributing to their cause are deserving of a salute. The dancers are true soldiers, and their fund-raising campaign paid off with $180,000 in less than three weeks. Now if a philanthropist would come to the rescue for the additional funding that’s needed, their dreams for a full 2008-09 season will become a reality.
Wouldn’t it be swell if the government could bail them out, since they subsidize so many other programs, such as bailing out failed lending institutions? The difference is that the ballet is a worthy cause and a way of life for the dancers.
Elda Torres Sanchez
Praying for the Doc
To the editor: The photograph on the recent front cover of Fort Worth Weekly (“His Last War,” Oct. 1, 2008) caught my eye. I read your emotional article. Thank you. Dr. William Littlejohn was my physician in the early 1970s — please let him know that I am praying for him and his beloved patients.
Danell M. Huckaby
Pink Fairies and
To the editor: The article “Devolution in Education” (Sept. 3, 2008) by Laurie Barker James sought to correct the thinking of who might wish to allow Intelligent Design’s incisive critique of macro-evolution entrance to our tax-funded classrooms. To read the article without any previous engagement with ID arguments, one would be led to believe that it is simply a matter of science versus religion, or reason versus faith. Why the need for debate? The gist is, ID proponents are not real scientists, and they don’t have any evidence worth looking at!
True science, according to a real science teacher quoted by James, “deals with natural explanations which are testable.” It’s simple, “it’s descent with modification.”
Naturalistic science has the facts. Creationists have the pink fairies. Let philosophical naturalism teach demonstrable “facts” like the ones I was taught in England: Giraffes got their long necks through constantly straining for higher branches; whales came from cow-like land critters that ventured into the oceans, and like James Bond’s car, adapted to life under the waves. The “scientific” explanation for wings? They came from proto-wings, which originated from flaps of skin under the arms of some extinct beastie.
We know that descent with modification explains varieties of dogs and horses. But macro-evolution (e.g. molecules to mind) isn’t provable, isn’t in the fossils, and can’t explain how information supposedly evolved. And it is possible to test for design.
Macroevolution is the creation myth of religious liberals and atheists. Don’t question it! Evolutionists are scared to death of you or your child hearing the other side of the story. But there’s always another side to the story.
Paul Martin Henebury, Ph.D
Veritas School of Theology
Email this Article...