Evolution, Ardi, And Us

I believe in God, and I do not see any scientific contradiction to existence of God, including recent research on Ardi (C&EN, Oct. 12, 2009, page 3). In any religion, the central core is the existence of God, and I do not see how evolution theory proves that God does not exist. I believe God created humans and other organisms and let them evolve and adapt to natural conditions. The only part of evolutionary theory that contradicts my religious views is that the theory claims that we have common ancestors with chimps and gorillas. If anything, the latest fascinating finding that Ardi walked upright underlines how Ardi was different from primates, and this strengthens my understanding of the scientific history. Indeed, Ardi, our ancestor, was nothing like a chimp, she was a human!

Bayram Saparov
Newark, Del.

In his editorial "Ardi and Us," Rudy Baum seems to equate those who disbelieve in evolution with those who distrust government. A flat disbelief in evolution is incomprehensible to me also. Given the mass of existing evidence, though, it seems reasonable to assume the existence of a directing factor to accommodate the astounding complexity and efficiency with which organisms have adapted to their environments. The nature of this factor should be a major incentive for research.

But I can see no connection to the distrust of government. One must be blind (or badly prejudiced) not to see the damage government has done and continues to do to this country and others. Only the stunning increase in productivity has mitigated this evolution. I am not referring to Democratic Administrations; Republicans are just as bad, and only their professed belief in less intrusive government speaks in their favor. Government intrusion was responsible for precipitating the current economic trouble from mandating the creation of subprime mortgages (see the Community Reinvestment Act under President Carter) to mandating the use and subsidy of ethanol for fuel to elevating to gospel truth the unproven role of industrial carbon dioxide in presumed global warming and consequently taxing it.

If people don't trust government, they have impeccable reasons; hence, they also fear pending government control of our admittedly ailing medical system. Because they did not trust government, our founding fathers spent years agonizing over the best way to frame a government. They did the best they could but realized that what they came up with was not perfect, as almost certainly it could not be. The sad truth is what Winston Churchill expressed: Democracy is terrible government but there is none better.

So it is no wonder that thinking people do not trust government. As to not trusting drug companies, don't let me get started on that!

A. E. Lippman
St. Louis

Baum's latest ramblings are once again over the top. In "Ardi and Us," Baum chastises and ridicules the 50% of the population who do not agree with the theory that man evolved from primates and not by divine design. While the divine design theory certainly requires a leap of faith, the same applies to evolution. It is far-fetched to accept the concept that all life forms began from chemical reactions in a primordial sea.

Baum's attitude is consistent with the liberal left, who proclaim themselves intellectually superior to all and that those who disagree with their opinions are uneducated, misinformed, or just downright stupid. Baum's condescending attitude has been frequently displayed in opinions he has expressed on global warming; namely, that anyone who disagrees with the contention that human sources are responsible for the current global-warming trend are just downright uninformed and stupid.

Attitudes like Baum's are pervasive in the Obama Administration and in the manner in which it is governing. The general population is too stupid to make informed choices, so the government will make decisions on their behalf. Thanks, but no thanks. I will think for myself and not what Baum and other liberals tell me I should think.

John Vargo
Solon, Iowa

Baum's editorial contains two statements with which few scientists will agree. First, he states that if a segment of the U.S. public does not accept certain truths, such as the truth of evolution, then everything that scientists discovered about that truth is meaningless. It is obvious that Galileo's discoveries were not meaningless because they were rejected, regardless of the number of people who did not understand the discovery.

His second conjecture is that if two different segments of the public disagree with him on two different issues (evolution and broad vaccination against H1N1 influenza), then there must be a significant overlap of the two segments. It does not seem to be true, at least in my case.

Baum notes in his Sept. 28, 2009 (page 3) editorial that the flu symptoms caused by H1N1 are mild and that they clear in a week. Therefore, many scientists do not believe that mass vaccination of the whole nation is desirable, in contrast to drug companies that would vaccinate 160 million people in the U.S. (C&EN, Aug. 24, 2009, page 8).

The same companies make billions of dollars on antiviral drugs despite their low efficiency and the increasing viral resistance to these drugs (C&EN, Sept. 28, 2009, page 15). Baum is surprised that some people do not trust drug companies, but he should understand that some people, and many scientists among them, rely more on scientific evidence than on manufacturers' advertisements. Baum should put up with a diversity of opinions and understand that those who do not share his beliefs are not necessarily wrong.

Thomas Guttman
Beer-Sheva, Israel