For several years now, I have kept my mouth shut as someone with the same name as myself has periodically written letters to both The Source and The Bulletin about Intellegent Design. As a person who works in the medical field and considers himself a man of science, the whole theory of Intelligent Design frustrates and annoys me. That being said, I have never chimed in on this debate because quite frankly, I believe that ID as a "scientific" theory is such an outlandish concept that it doesn't even deserve a response. Although I respect the desire for other Source readers to chime in on this debate (if you can call it that), a response just grants the ID theorists more attention. And ultimately, it's unlikely that someone who truly believes in ID will allow their position to be swayed by scientific argument.
To be honest, I have only responded this time because I am tired of people asking me why I write these things.
I, Scott B Weber, do not believe in ID. But because I believe in Freedom of Speech, Scott Weber can believe whatever he wants. I also believe that faith is a very powerful thing, and if Scott Weber's faith makes him believe in ID, then so be it. Arguing against someone's faith is never a good idea.
Scott B. Weber, Bend
