Hey everybody. Just got this morning's newspaper, and there was a rather offensive editorial bashing atheists. Here it is:



Now, I was planning on replying, but I thought it would be interesting to get a few of you involved in typing up the draft to send to the newspaper, as well. The editorial would be attributed to all who participated by name. Keep in mind that editorials in this newspaper have to be under 250 words.

Basically, here's a rough idea of what I've got so far:
In Graham Lovelady's editorial 'Evolutionists Brainwash Kids with Atheism', the writer clearly portrays an ignorance of how the scientific process works. *Science never says, ANYWHERE, that you shouldn't acknowledge something you cannot see. *And the wind is hardly a good bit of supporting evidence. *Science stresses learning through observation. *Observation isn't limited to sight alone. *Individual atoms are invisible to the naked eye, but can be observed using electron-tunnelling microscopes. *The same logic applies to the wind: *It cannot be seen, but it can be observed. *Flags waving, ships sailing. *These are effects of wind. *And if you capture an amount of air in a balloon, you can feel the pressure it exerts. *These are all observations that don't rely on directly seeing the air itself.
When you get to God, you're right: We cannot see God. *We cannot observe God in any way, shape or form. *By definition, an omnipotent, omniscient being could avoid detection for as long as he wanted, no matter what means were used in the attempt. *But that doesn't disprove evolution. *Evolution is, at it's core, not based on atheism at all. *Evolution is based on a long line of skeletal and genetic evidence. *We have skulls of 'cave men' that far predate modern men, and are different in many ways. *We have the new Florence Island discoveries, of an entirely new type of man: *One as tall as a three year old with a brain 1/3 the size of our own. *Evolution relies on this, not on atheism. *You cannot blow it out of the water by saying that atheism is wrong. *Atheism relies on evolution, because it is the best explanation for how we got here, and it doesn't require a God to happen. *But evolution doesn't rely on atheism at all. *[/b]
It's already over the minimum length (323 words), so it will have to be edited and condensed somehow.

Feel free to just alter mine, or start a new one entirely. I can almost guaruntee it will be published. The newspaper tries to represent both sides, but since this is a Utah paper, the ID supporters far outnumber evolution supporters, so the newspaper is scrambling for more evolution articles.

Please try to just edit or add on to what others post rather than starting over when possible, in the interest of time. Since this is only the first post, though, feel free to start over if you feel inclined.

Well, have at it!