Evolution isn't as universally accepted as proponents say

Evolution isn't as universally accepted as proponents say
EDITOR:
In a recent readers letter titled, "Evidence of evolution cannot be disputed", the writer errs in his assertion that every reputable scientist accepts this irrational theory as an indisputable truth and further misleads the readers in stating that there is an overwhelming body of evidence in support of this theory which rests in pure speculation and continues to be taught in spite of any documented evidence, rather than because of its evidence.
Most persons with a general knowledge in the realm of natural science would concur that a form of evolution known as "micro-evolution," which accounts for adaptability and variations within a particular species occurring in both the plant and animal kingdom are undeniably true. Darwin's theory of evolution, known as "macro-evolution," is much more controversial, claiming that humans descended from primordial ooze through millions of years of natural selection and mutation and eventually appeared on the scene from the same common ancestor as the ape, all happening by random chance and without divine intervention.
Charles Darwin once conceded that a lack of transitional forms of life in the fossil data, "i.e. a fish with legs," were an obvious and serious objection to his theory but believed future discoveries would vindicate him. One hundred and twenty years after Darwin made this statement there are even fewer examples of transitional forms than in Darwin's time due to hoaxes like Piltdown man.
The largest problem with Macro-evolution theorists is the formulation of a reasonable path of how life went unguided from simple chemicals, to proteins, to basic life forms. Today's leading scientists concede that all discussions on principle theories and experimentation have come to dead ends with too much speculation running after too few facts.
It seems only logical to infer that if there is no natural explanation, and there doesn't seem to be a hint of a chance of finding one, then it is only rational to look to the supernatural or at least the one that has been firmly accepted as historical truth for the last three millennia until the day of Darwin, that is, the story of Genesis as given by revelation to the prophet Moses!
NEIL B. HAGAN
Warren
X The writer is deacon and associate minister of House of Prayer UHCA in Warren.
Burning a flag isn't a form of speech; it's contemptible and it carries consequences
EDITOR:
A recent issue of The Vindicator reported that Congressman Tim Ryan, without one iota of experience in defending the flag militarily, voted to uphold the right to burn the flag as a form of free speech. Burning the American flag is not a form of free speech. It is a disrespectful, unpatriotic, undisciplined, unacceptable act of cowardice against our national symbol of freedom. Every cause has an effect.
The flag burner's cause is hatred stemming from unresolved issues in a disturbed life and the effect is burning the American flag. If he needs to resort to a violent act to make his statement, his behavior problem is a danger to a free society. If he is not permitted to burn the flag, he will destroy something or someone to prove his point. The taking of Officer Hartzell's young life is a prime example. (I am a Hartzell on the maternal side of my family).
In the June 8 Vindicator there was a report that because of 18 South Korean-born golfers' successes on tour, the American flag has been relegated to the second position on the flag pole. I find this as offensive as having it burned. In South Korea, they can put their flag where they wish, but in America, our flag belongs on top, even on a golf course.
I have the freedom to write this letter. A million thanks to all of our wonderful veterans who faced an enemy on our behalf.
DOROTHY YONKER
Boardman