Several letters commenting on Andrew Miall's recent letter to the Reader's Forum demand some commentary of their own.

It is personally difficult for me to understand how anyone who calls himself or herself a geoscientist can confuse science and religion. Science is agnostic; it cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. This does not mean God does not exist. Belief in God is a matter of faith. Faith and science co-exist amicably, because they inhabit different domains. But the differences are inherently real and no one should attempt to "bridge" them. The theory of evolution is no different than the theory of gravity or any other scientific dogma; it is the best current explanation for the observed facts and is subject to testing, revision and improvement. Theology, on the other hand, cannot be measured or tested by scientific method. The two are mutually exclusive.

The real issue is much deeper and much more dangerous than advocates on both sides generally appreciate; these are questoins that the founding fathers of the United States grappled with nad resolved during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in the 18th century and need not be revisited in the 21st century.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that we allow creationist theory to be offered in public schools. Now, whose creationist theory will we endorse? There are as many ideas on this as there are sectarian and denominational beliefs. What will be the yardstick for "testing" these "theories"?

Are our children going to be taught that the earth is 4.6 billion or only 6,000 years old? Are we going to be taught that God is simply the first cause/pime mover at the beginning of Creation, or did He provide the punctuation at key times during the evolutionary process? The quagmire and conflict would only deepen with time. Whose doxology would our grandchildren have to recite? Which church would wield the most tax dollars? No, independent of their lackof scientific merit, creationist ideas, such as "intelligent design," are a political Pandora's box that should never be opened. Sophistry about the liberal media only obfuscates the problem. The media is not the enemy here. The enemy are those who would destroy the integrity of religion and science in the name of both.

When AAPG members shrink from their responsibility to support and advocate good science, then all of us are at risk.

Scott Uttley, Littleton, Colo. . . .