'Intelligent design' should be discussed but not in science curriculum

'Intelligent design' should be discussed but not in science curriculum
EDITOR:
In a recent CNN report -- "Evolution Debate Heats Up in Ohio," Feb. 13 -- I read that some members of the Ohio State Board of Education, including the representative of my district, Deborah Owens Fink, are intent on including "intelligent design" language into the public school science curriculum.
As I understand it, "intelligent design" is a term used to describe the theory that life was created by a higher being, i.e., a new term for creationism.
I feel that including intelligent design alongside evolution as a theory taught in our public schools would be both a detriment and an embarrassment to the state of Ohio. Science is a discipline where ideas and explanations for phenomena, such as our existence, are debated based upon the available facts. The theory of evolution is backed by a very substantial and ever-increasing volume of evidence. Not only is there a huge amount of historical evidence (including what can be found in the coding of our own DNA), but the theory is tested and applied daily.
For example, evolutionary theory is applied to the design of drugs to fight cancer and AIDS, and helps us in determining what genes are important for causing diseases such as schizophrenia and Parkinson's disease.
Intelligent design, however, is not a theory that can be tested or its merits debated based upon physical evidence. It also provides no value in understanding our physical world or in curing illness. And while this idea should be freely and actively discussed in society, it has no place in our state's science curriculum.
CORY DUNN
Baltimore
X The writer, a graduate student in cell biology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, is from Liberty Township.
Why insist on celibacy?
EDITOR:
With the rash of pedophile problems in the Roman Catholic Church and the ridiculous amount of money going out to settle civil lawsuits, shouldn't the hierarchy of the church reconstruct their stand on celibacy of their priests?
It would certainly help with their shortage of priest enrollment, I would think.
Besides, I can't find any scriptural evidence to support such practice anyway.
WILLIAM R. GOTHARD
North Jackson

Traficant staff must have been coerced to testify
EDITOR:
It is shocking how many people are willing to expose their lack of honor. The rogues' gallery of snitches that Prosecutor Morford promiscously uses to pursue his Ken Starr-like vendetta against our good congressman is astounding.
What did Morford promise or threaten these people to sell their former mentor down the river? They all fed at the trough and now are squealing.
The world still hates a ratfink, so every witness also becomes a casualty of the indifferent Morford's private war.
Now the real issue with the Traficant charges is, it seems, that each representative must have a $2 million budget for staff, and by God they are going to spend it. So we raise a stink if a representative gets a $5,000 raise, but they blow our taxes on staff with nary a whimper. Incidentally, the work on the farm and boat was probably the most honest work any staffer ever did for his stipend: at least something was got for our money.
One solution: just give each rep a million and let them hire their own staff, or if they can type, let them keep it all.
We always get the government we want, mostly through apathy.
PHILLIP S. ARBIE
Warren