Letters To The Editor
Unpublished correction: The name of the Olmsted brothers was misspelled in this story.
WASHINGTON STATE
Theory, yes, but it’s best explanation
Washington state Senate Bill 6394 is yet another attempt by religious fundamentalists to sabotage science education in public schools. This bill mandates a textbook disclaimer that describes evolution as “a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things …”
In truth, there is no serious doubt among mainstream scientists that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. In a recent survey (Nature, April 1997), 95 percent of scientists polled rejected the prevailing creationist view that living things were created in their current form less than 10,000 years ago. The evolutionary paradigm is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence and is endorsed by every reputable scientific organization in the world. If there is any controversy regarding the occurrence of evolution, it is of a religious nature, not a scientific one.
Creationists labor under the misconception that characterizing evolutionary science as theory demotes it to the level of guesswork. But in science, a theory represents a logical, verifiable, well-documented explanation for a great variety of facts (e.g., the theory of the atom, the theory of gravitation, the germ theory of disease, etc.). If creationists feel better defining evolution as a theory, so be it. It is one of the rare instances where most scientists agree with them.
Regardless of whether creationists are truly misinformed about scientific opinion regarding evolution or whether they simply think they can get away with misrepresenting the facts, they have no business setting science policy for anyone. Jack R. DeBaun Sandpoint
Textbook statement can be improved
I’d like to weigh in on the textbook controversy over the insertion of language about the theory of evolution. Really, I don’t mind inserting a statement, but I do have a few problems with the one currently being drafted, since it contains a number of inaccurate statements. Here’s my proposal:
“This textbook discusses evolution, a theory that the overwhelming majority of scientists present as the best scientific explanation developed to date for the origin of living things - plants, animals and humans. Most scientists also acknowledge that the theory of evolution is a work in progress with new discoveries expanding our understanding of how life has evolved. For some, mainly those who believe that the two creation stories in the Christian Bible must be read literally, the theory of evolution is very controversial. Many other readers of the Christian Bible do not hold such a view and believe that the theory of evolution fits into their faith. Nonetheless, as far as we know, no one was present when life first appeared on Earth, and therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered theory, not fact.”
Much better!
And, I’ve got another proposal. Include the theory of creation science as well in the textbooks, and please explain that this theory was developed with the assumption that the Christian Bible’s description of creation in Genesis is scientifically true. Let students judge for themselves which theory is best supported by the fossil record, geological history, chemistry, anthropology, biology and physics. Robert M. Cole Jr. Spokane
SPOKANE MATTERS
DOE right to reject bridge plan
I used to admire and agree with Opinion editor John Webster’s editorial opinions, but lately, I find his views reactionary and revisionary.
Webster’s Feb. 16 editorial on the Department of Ecology’s refusal to approve a shoreline permit to the city to build the infamous Lincoln Street bridge was unworthy of both Webster’s talent and The Spokesman-Review’s intelligent readers.
Ecology was correct, legally and in a civic sense, to deny this request, since the city’s own shoreline master plan does not allow anything which might obliterate the view of the falls. The Lincoln Street bridge would not be a replacement for the Post Street Bridge. It would be truly a new structure, at a new site - over the spectacular falls that identify Spokane.
I went before the city hearing examiner last September and argued that building the Lincoln bridge would violate the city’s own guidelines, its heritage and its Expo’ 74 promise to the people of America. At that hearing, I read for the record from the 1913 Olmstead brothers’ report, from the 1972 City’s Shoreline Master Plan, from the late Sen. Warren Magnuson’s promise to America for Expo money and from the 1994 Planning Commission draft for preservation of the river gorge.
None of this testimony made any impression on Examiner Greg Smith, who predictably issued the conditional permit for the project. Regardless of the late timing, the Department of Ecology was correct and courageous to reject the tremendous pressure placed on it to grant permission to destroy our city’s jewel, our vista, our heritage. Frank T. Yuse Spokane
HIGHER EDUCATION
Let situation spur creative solutions
As difficult as the current crisis is for Eastern Washington University, it still offers a great opportunity to break out of the routine and rethink everything. I sincerely hope the students and faculty let loose their creative energies, then make their ideas known.
Perhaps EWU should consider how Cornell College in Iowa offers courses. Students take one course at a time and each course lasts only three and one-half weeks. (Check out Cornell’s Web site for details.) A radical change like that would define EWU as a unique school, easily distinguished from the other universities in the state and the region. In any case, the time has come for bold, creative thinking at EWU; small surface changes will not improve its situation in the long run. Bonnie K. Frederick Pullman
Better to put UW in driver’s seat
State bill SB6717 and current Higher Education Coordinating Board recommendations propose that Washington State University take control and manage the 48-acre Riverpoint Higher Education Park for instruction and research.
Based upon U.S. Census data (C90STF3A database), health services ranks second as Spokane County’s largest industry, employing 12 percent of our work force. (Retail trade ranks first, at 19 percent.) To complement Spokane’s major industry, the emphasis should be in medical research.
The University of Washington faculty has received four Nobel prizes in medicine and physics. According to its web site, in 1995, UW received more than $477 million in public and private grants and support, and ranked among the top five institutions receiving federal awards. This has supported 5,200 research jobs on campus and start-up of over 40 new companies, generating 3,500 jobs with $79 million a year in expenditures. UW also has experience in managing 25 field sites in locations around the world.
With 4,000 faculty members, UW should be in a much better position to support research in Spokane than WSU. UW has medical training affiliations in more than 75 cities throughout the Northwest, and should also be more unbiased in reviewing current EWU-WSU programs in Spokane, rather than giving WSU first rights to EWU’s Spokane enrollment. James Vocature, quotations manager Key Tronic Corp., Spokane
Let’s not count gains prematurely
Re: “EWU’s case lacks merit” (Loren Harris, Letters, Feb. 11).
Harris states that “Spokane has everything to gain from WSU.”
First, let’s ask the question no one seems to have an answer to: If Washington State University, the “respected research university,” is such an economic powerhouse capable of tremendous economic growth, why haven’t we seen this type of growth in the Moscow-Pullman corridor? In addition, what programs (not already offered) will benefit Spokane so tremendously? I keep hearing rumors about how much Spokane needs engineering programs and how the Joint Center for Higher Education has prevented WSU from bringing them to our area. This is simply not true. The JCHE approved WSU bringing these programs to Spokane in 1992, but the university hasn’t seen fit to do so yet. So much for high demand for well-respected programs.
If there is such a high demand for programs in the Spokane area, why is enrollment down in almost all East Side public and private colleges and universities, including WSU-Spokane?
The only positive aspect of SB6717 seems to be the prospective establishment of a full research structure in Spokane. I question, however, how much it will cost the taxpayers for WSU to build a research infrastructure in Spokane.
This is a much bigger issue than fixing EWU’s problems. I urge you to ask yourself who truly benefits from this bill. I haven’t figured it out yet, but I’m sure it isn’t Spokane taxpayers. Aaron Gutierrez Academic Affairs, Associated Students of EWU, Cheney
Faculty research is a whetstone
The brief allusions to academic research in recent articles merit greater emphasis. The public deserves to know better how the faculty’s research contributes to higher education.
Research requirements force professors to take notice and understand the latest and most advanced developments in their specialty. For instance, by reading research journals and attending seminars at the nation’s top research centers. A constantly updated understanding of their specialty remains indispensable for professors to explain the current state of the art to undergraduates, because many undergraduate textbooks do not keep up with change or reflect current practice.
Research requirements force professors to maintain their competence in the specialty they are teaching. Whether the research topics and results are obscure or of little use is generally impossible to assess. For example, development of such medical diagnostic imaging devices as computer-assisted tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scanners in the 1970s relied on an obscure research paper published in 1917.
Publication requirement is the acid test that forces professors to submit their understanding, competence and communication skills to the scrutiny of professional referees (peer reviewers). This is indispensable to eliminate professors’ errors and misunderstandings.
Faculty research publications are the only pieces of evidence of faculty competence available to the general public, who don’t have the legal right to drop in and observe the faculty’s classes.
Of course, research puts a heavier burden on faculty workload, on students learning more difficult materials and on public finances. But without faculty research, students get a lower level of education. Yves Nievergelt, Ph.D. Nine Mile Falls
Low blows no laughing matter
After reading editor Chris Peck’s column, “The 10-step program to revive Eastern,” which was extremely insensitive, tacky and included personal affronts, I think Peck should be reassigned to writing that snippy little gossip column, The Slice.
Eight out of the 10 “ideas” Peck proposed were nothing less than insults. Perhaps Peck felt he was being funny. However, his humor was mean-spirited. But then, what can be expected from someone who begins his column with, “Well, we still have Eastern Washington University to kick around some more”? Peck did a fine job of kicking, both above and below the belt, with his derisive comments. He ought to be ashamed of himself for implying that students attend EWU only for financial reasons, that they have no other choice. What a back-handed insult to the students and the faculty.
And just out of curiosity, did the daughter of the executive vice provost of EWU contact Peck and ask him to please use her personal situation as a stereotype for the type of student EWU would or should attract? Or was she randomly selected from the Spokane County population as an example?
If, as Peck states, “Spokane needs EWU. Eastern also needs Spokane. This marriage can be saved,” then may I suggest that Peck, as editor of The Spokesman-Review, refrain from contributing to the acrimony. Jackie Cash-Rolland Cheney
OTHER TOPICS
Show concern for Iraqi civilians
As the confrontation with Saddam Hussein has grown more intense, I have waited and hoped Secretary of Defense William Cohen and President Clinton would announce to the world that our intention is not to injure or kill a single individual in Iraq, but only to destroy Iraq’s weapons that are capable of offensive action against the Iraqi people and their neighbors. And that, therefore, if military action by the United Sates is deemed necessary to accomplish this objective, we would only bomb sites the U.N. inspection teams have been denied access to.
Furthermore, we would give six hours of advance notice to Saddam that all persons should be removed from those areas because bombing is imminent.
Such a declaration of purpose and plan of action would go a long way toward mitigating or removing the opposition to military action that France, Russia and perhaps even the Saudis have expressed.
We need to add the concept of our care for the lives of people, their homes and their capability for continued peaceful production of the necessities of life to this unfortunate situation. Otherwise, we may win the battle but lose the respect of the world. Earnest A. Sprow Spokane
Defense of Clinton doesn’t add up
Each U.S. citizen is entitled to his or her prejudices, opinions and political bias. But when anyone promulgates lies under the guise of truth, response is demanded to set the record straight.
Andy Kelly (Letters, Feb. 15) either is lying or shows abysmal ignorance in stating that “he (Bill Clinton) has eliminated their (the GOP) - President Reagan’s - gigantic national debt.” At last report, the national debt had grown approximately $1 trillion since Clinton took office. If Kelly is confusing the deficit with the national debt, it isn’t even true that the deficit has been eliminated, especially if one does accurate accounting so as to exclude revenues in excess of those needed to satisfy current Social Security entitlements.
Kelly states, “Ken Starr has spent more than $30 million of our money and has come up with nothing.” One wonders if “coming up with nothing” includes indictments of a dozen or more Clinton administration officials and/or cronies, including (among others) felony convictions of Webster Hubble, James McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker, guilty pleas by Judge David Hale and contempt of court citation and imprisonment of Susan McDougal for refusing to testify regarding whether or not Clinton committed perjury.
Kelly’s willingness to defend the man who promised an administration more free of corruption than any in history, which however, has resulted in more scandal, shady deals and potentially criminal behavior, is only understandable to someone wearing blinders and lacking the ability to hear and/or reason. Gene K. Ealy Coeur d’ Alene
Stereotyping statement flat wrong
I find the comments of Darren Reed (Letters, Feb 14) interesting. He thinks we should separate the private life and professional performance of President Clinton. Would he grant the same for Mary K. Letourneau?
On Feb 14, there was an article, “Career Day offers words of wisdom.” In it, Joy Hardiman, executive director of Evergreen State College’s Tacoma campus, was reported to have said that “without a college education, you can’t help yourself or your community.”
Just think of all the members of our community who are fooling themselves into thinking they are helping themselves and their community. I’ll have to ask my degreeless brother-in-law what his thoughts are about this statement.
I’ll have to wait until he returns from his five-week Hawaiian vacation. He doesn’t like to be bothered by unimportant cell phone calls while on the golf course. Patrick W. Carroll Spokane