Letters to the Editor
J.A. Gowman
The main reason creationists criticize evolution is that it is still just a scientific “theory,” not a scientific “law.” A “theory” starts out as a plausible idea, for which evidence is collected.

Letters to the Editor
John R. Junger III
With regard to M.G. Oxsen’s “Designer’ debate” letter (May 18, Gazette), I would like to make two brief points:

Letters to the Editor
Mickey McVay
It is interesting to note that liberals would almost be devoid of speech if the words “neocons,” “teabagger,” “fascist,” “Hitler,” “oligarchy,” and “meanspirited” were eliminated from their vocabulary.

Letters to the Editor
Glen Garcia
Kudos to both David Grow (“Real ‘science,’” May 25, Gazette) and Michael Hopkins (“A ‘point’ refuted,” May 25) for their masterful refutations of the anti-evolutionist dogma recently published within the Letters pages of your fine publication.

Letters to the Editor
P.T. Henley
I’m writing this letter on Monday, May 23, 2011, the day after the worst tornado to ever hit Missouri.

Letters to the Editor
David Grow
Oh, for crying out loud, here we go again! M.G. Oxsen’s letter (“‘Designer’ debate,” May 18, Oklahoma Gazette), criticizing Kurt Hochenauer’s Commentary (“Point: More doctors, less preachers,“ April 13, Gazette) regarding evolution, again demonstrates an ignorance of basic science and evolution in particular.

Letters to the Editor
Lee Agnew
Regarding Clifton Adcock’s “Kern: ‘I am not a racist,’” April 29, okgazette.com: I am convinced that state Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, meant what she said the first time, and that she still believes it in her heart.

Letters to the Editor
Michael Hopkins
The Rev. Steve Kern tells us in “Missing ‘the point’” (Letters, April 27, Gazette) that “The Cambrian explosion is science that says all phyla came into existence almost simultaneously, not slowly from simple to complex forms.”

Letters to the Editor
Amber Nemecek
I am amazed at how many letters were written in response to Steve Kern’s Commentary (“Commentary: Scrutinizing science,” April 13, Gazette) article. My main concern is that people are in an upro

Letters to the Editor
Chadwick Cox
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., tells us that nuclear power plants here in America are safe (“Counterpoint: ‘Clean, reliable, affordable’ power,” April 20, Gazette) because he asked Chairman Greg Jaczko of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear industry, and they told him our nuclear power plants are safe. He accepts their word without question.

Letters to the Editor
Steve Kern

Letters to the Editor
Bill G. Liebegott
Recently, citizens had the opportunity to witness the heroic actions of firefighters battling fast-spreading brush fires across the eastern part of Oklahoma County.

Letters to the Editor
Leslie V. Batchelor
Disclosure of personal conflicts of interest of Urban Renewal Commissioners is governed by Title 11, Section 38-118 of the Oklahoma Statutes. That statute categorically prohibits the voluntary acquisition of any personal interest, direct or indirect, in an urban renewal project. Certain other potential conflicts must be disclosed to the Urban Renewal Authority and the municipal governing body.

Contrary to the statement in the article, state law does not require the Urban Renewal Authority to file conflict of interest forms with the secretary of state’s office. Nor does the law require the filing of any form when there is no conflict of interest.

Letters to the Editor
M.G. Oxsen
Professor Kurt Hochenauer should stick to teaching English. He has no credentials to defend the theory of evolution.

Letters to the Editor
Larry Stem
In answer to our esteemed Sen. Jim Inhofe, I pose the following points against his dissertation (“Counterpoint: ‘Clean, reliable, affordable’ power, Apr. 20, Gazette), which looks like a press release for the nuclear power industry, and probably is.