To the editor:
Leonard Krishtalka wants to get real. That means teaching real science. However, what theory proves the philosophy of naturalism that is the basis for his scientific methodology? Oh, blind faith. Krishtalka is willing for religion to "provide a sense of place and purpose." Where did that sense come from? Can science explain the cosmos without answering that question?
Krishtalka wants to get real about energy and the environment. Why care about these when we are absurd accidents (logical implication of naturalistic evolution) about to go out of existence without a reason or purpose for being here? There are other avenues to reality than an empirical science. As Pascal put it, there is a God-shaped vacuum in our heart. Science and rationality cannot fill that void or answer why there is one.
One writer to the Journal-World said that intelligent design has accomplished nothing. What has non-intelligent design accomplished? Surely it does not tell us our purpose. If the universe and mankind evolved without design, then why are we sure there is an answer to any problem? Let children study in textbooks without design and what would be learned? What can scientists learn in a universe without design?
Another writer doesn't want religion pushed on children in public schools. Fine, but others don't want the philosophy/religion of naturalism disguised as science pushed on children. We want children to have purpose and for the void to be filled. We have more than a blind faith.