Evolution debate insight
There have been a number of letters to the editor in The
Pinnacle dealing with the controversial question of evolution. Some
may find them boring or non-consequential, but don’t be fooled, it
is one of the most important subjects for understanding of today’s
modern society.
Evolution is a religion. It is to Humanism what the Bible is to Christianity as the underlying philosophy of public education. You now know why so many parents choose home schooling (15 percent and growing).
To better understand the role of evolution in our society one must go back in time to the 18th and 19th centuries in western civilization. In those days in Europe there were three major forces within society. The aristocrats (the king and princess) the church (Catholic) and the bankers (Rothschild’s, et al). The aristocrats ruled the peasants, the church ruled the aristocrats, and the bankers had all three indebted to them.
Life was uncertain, life expectancy was age 42 for males. Tuberculosis was rampant as was typhus and typhoid fever and war. The church preached hell fire and brimstone, repent, toe the line or burn in hell! This rankled the aristocrats and the intelligentsia as it created a guilt complex and fear.
Then in 1948 along comes Charles Darwin with a new and novel concept called Evolution. No God, we arose from fishes and monkeys all by chance – it’s a case of survival of the fittest, nothing is right nor wrong except in so far was thinking makes it so.
What relief, no God. No hell. We’re out from under the church’s strict and restraining code of behavior. So you can see why the concept of Evolution gained acceptance throughout society especially the intellectuals and those in academia. And now you understand why it is so popular and acceptable today. Because there are no scientific facts to support the concept of evolution, it must be taken on faith, just like other religions.
If you can understand this, you’ll be better able to read the controversial letters about evolution in The Pinnacle and enjoy them.
J.G. McCormack
Gilroy
Downtown charm needs protection
When Portland, Ore., decided to revitalize their downtown, it was rumored that the plan was as simple as this: ‘Don’t do anything that San Jose, California has done, and it will be a success!’ Whether this is true or not, Portland enjoys a healthy, and thriving downtown while San Jose does not.
One of San Jose’s mistakes was that its downtown cannot support its impacted outlying suburbia. If Gilroy is not careful, it will follow in San Jose’s footsteps.
The Mayor and the City Council continue to support building blistering subdivisions on once pristine rural areas, however, will not support a plan to develop a downtown area that will sustain the residents who will be occupying these new homes.
My father, a resident of San Jose, joined me for lunch in downtown Gilroy. Afterward we strolled downtown to purchase a tie for my husband. My father was somehow impressed by this, explaining to me that there was a time, believe it or not, that one could buy a shirt in downtown San Jose. N ow you would be hard pressed to do so.
Please keep faith in RDA, with the paving over of Gilroy’s beautiful hillsides, it might soon be Gilroy’s only charm left!
Margaret Baker
Gilroy
