In regards to Truths that are critical to faith
I really enjoy reading ‘Tutta’s Take,” but she may have outrun her coverage last week. She’s free to celebrate some forms of truth that are devoid of supporting facts, but the Christian Scriptures (for one) claim that the facts of the Resurrection – for example – are critical to the truth claimed by the faith. The Apostle Paul wrote (at a time when many of the witnesses to Jesus’ Resurrection were still living) that – if the facts claimed by the witnesses were not objectively true, they should all turn out the lights, the party was over. No truth to see here. As C.S. Lewis said about the claims of deity by Jesus: he was either a liar, a lunatic or Lord. There are no other options.

As far as God stopping the sun from moving in the sky in the Biblical account, Tutta seems to say that we can’t take the story in any literal sense because God didn’t use our scientific terminology that those ancient people would not have even understood! Don’t we still say “the sun rose at 6:30?”  Wasn’t that the focus of the miracle – what the people SAW?

I’m not sure what to make of this statement: “It’s Earth that moves, and if it stopped it would crash into the sun and burn to a crisp in two seconds.” Actually, unless God also paused the entire movement of the atmosphere and stabilized the magnetic field, a pause in the earth’s rotation would lead to earth-surface catastrophe, not the planet veering out of it’s orbit toward the sun. There are places on earth that periodically have 24 hours when ‘the sun does not go down.’ (sorry for the non-scientific language). Maybe God didn’t pause the earth’s rotation, but effected the miracle by some other means.

That miracle was big, but a bigger trick is calling the cosmos into existence from non-existence. So I figure God could suspend physics and astronomy without too much sweat. If it is God who is right now sustaining the spin of electrons at near the speed of light around billions of atoms comprising the tip of my finger – each atom a virtual solar system with unspeakable measures of space – then I assume he could do anything. But I could be wrong.

David Sweet


A good read on climate change
In his recent column, Ray Wolbrecht promotes a common myth – that climate science is unproven.

To counter this misinformation, I encourage reading “The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism.” It’s available online and provides an excellent summary of the lines of evidence that have led 200 science academies throughout the world, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, to conclude that climate change is human-caused. Consider that the Israel Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran agree on this issue.

If one is serious about examining the issue of human-induced climate change, the place to start is understanding why scientists believe it. 

In reality, however, the climate debate isn’t about science – it’s about the role of government. Many conservatives dismiss evidence of climate risk because they fear that acceptance of this evidence will lead to greater government intrusion in our lives. Science is a proxy debate.

Ever wonder why we don’t hear scores of angry voices claiming that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS? It’s because that scientific conclusion doesn’t threaten deeply held values.

In his book, “The Constitution of Liberty,” Nobel Prize-winning economist and libertarian Friedrich Hayek writes: “Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it.”

It’s encouraging, however, that a number of thought leaders on the right are stepping forward to offer bold, effective limited-government solutions to the climate crisis. This includes Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL), former Republican congressman Bob Inglis, and Jerry Taylor, president of the Niskanen Center. I strongly recommend reading Taylor’s thought-provoking essay, “The Alternative to Ideology.”

We’re in this together. Let’s reach across divides and find a way to fight climate change.

Terry Hansen
Hales Corners, WI



Send them back

I watch Austin TV newscasts every evening and see how they (and all of Texas) have a homeless problem. My solution is that we should use Trump’s idea. Paraphrasing his base “send them back,” I believe that all the homeless people should be rounded up and sent back to their point of origin and have their cities take care of their own. Not to be heartless but we cannot as taxpayers pay for these peoples’ needs. Their relatives should pick up the slack and the ones with no relatives or mental problems should be placed in institutions where they can be put to work to earn their keep. Ankle bracelets can be used in case they try to leave their towns again.

With animal shelters, they can clear the shelters by cities having a donor list of people willing to put up the adoption fee for any kid or grown-up who wants to adopt a pet but cannot afford the adoption fee. I myself am on a fixed SS income but would gladly pay the 40 or 50 dollar adoption fee to make some kid or person happy. This would be much better than euthanasia.  

By the way, I called Congressman Doggett’s office last week to see if he had voted to bail out the mid-west farmers after Trump’s tariffs on other countries had hurt the American farmer and they said they didn’t know. I then called his office in Washington, D.C. and they didn’t know either. I asked them why they kept their offices open if they didn’t know anything Doggett was doing. I figure they just didn’t want to tell me that he sided with Trump to bail them out with our own taxpayer money. In my opinion, any Democrat who sides with Trump is not fit for re-election, and that goes for Doggett too.

Ezekiel Enriquez, Sr
San Marcos, TX

Comment on this Article

About Author

Comments are closed.