Darwinism and Its Discontents

Peter Slevin's article ["Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens," front page, March 14] omitted one philosophically relevant fact: Darwinian theory does not explain, nor does it purport to explain, the origin of life.

Science may posit scenarios -- inorganic molecules brought to self-replicating life by, say, a lightning bolt agitating primordial soup -- but belief in such miracles requires its own leap of faith, almost as demanding as an acceptance of Genesis.

The limitations of science need not, of course, lead to religious belief, and evolution remains the most plausible explanation we have for the changing complexity of nature. But the fossil record has gaps and inconsistencies, and one does not have to believe the biblical myth of creation to think that the intricate marvels of the human brain and body, evolved or not, suggest the possibility of intelligent design.

And always lurking in the background is that nagging question, probably forever unanswerable by science: How did it all begin?

ANDY ANDERSON

Bronxville, N.Y.

•

Evolution is the organizing principle of all knowledge in the life science field; every piece of data fits, and no fact has ever contradicted it. It is without controversy in the world of science.

The political fight about evolution is a replay of the conflict between Galileo and the Catholic Church about the shape of the solar system. Then, as now, it was a case of scientific knowledge vs. ignorance.

This is harshly put, but it's the objective truth.

HOWARD MORLAND

Arlington

•

I believe that those on the Christian right who promote creationism are not strong in their faith but rather weak. Their insistence on seeing the hand of God in physical processes reminds me of Thomas the Apostle, who could not bring himself to believe in the resurrection until he had seen the nail holes.