In the March Reader's Forum, Andrew D. Miall contributed a letter (The End of Enlightenment?) in which he attempts to raise a debate between science and religion. In the April Issue Don Eustes and Cory Ezelle provide a professional and elegant reply to Miall's letter, in which they correctly indicate that Miall has focused on ideology.

Reading both letters, one can surmise that the real issue is centered on critical thinking skills and objective science.

Miall states that "Evolution is a fact" rather than a theory. Let us return to Geology 101 and the scientific method ... which provides a procedure for determining whether or not a hypothesis is valid. After objectively gathering data on a particular subject and a preliminary analysis of said data, a hypothesis is proposed. Predictions are then made, experiments conducted and/or additional data gathered, and the hypothesis is tested. Objectivit is critical throughout the process. The hypothesis, if supported by the experiment and data, remains open to future verification.

A critical, unbiased analysis of the facts from the fields of genetics, biology, physics and geology suggests that the theory of evolution falls short of explaining the generation and diversity of life. Years of genetic genetic experimentation on fruit flies has shown that we can cause mutations that generate blue-eyed, furry, spotted ... fruit flies, but not a new species. Two hundred years of dog breeding has generated a diversity of breeds, but in the end they are all dogs. Experimentation with vegetables has lead to sugar beets with increased sugar yields, jalapeno peppers with less of a bite, disease resistant strains of corn, but in every case a mutation of the original is all that occurred. In each case the attribute that defines a speicies is maintained.

One of the hallmark experiments used to "test" evolution is Stanley Miller's 1953 chemistry experiment that generated amino acids out of simple chemicals, gases and an electric charge. This experiment was thought to show the state of the earth in the distant past and how life might have formed from lifelessness. The experiment does generate amino acids, but not the building blocks of life.

Let's use the scientific method to see if this experiment supports the theory of evolution.

First, only specific chemicals are allowed to enter the test tube and the conditions of the experiment are closely controlled by the chemist. Is this really a test of natural, random processes at work? Does it provide a reasonable experiment of the conditions of the early seas? Critical analysis suggests that the experiment reveals that careful thought is required in running a chemical reaction.

Second, the amino acids produced by the experiment are both right and left-handed varuetues (a 50-50 mix). In living things, only left handed varieties are acceptable. Why are living designed with only left-handed amino acids?

In 1958, Sidney Fox boiled amino acids to build proteins, which many felt was another "Test" of the evolution theory. The problem with the experiment is that it does not test the theory. Proteins found in living things use only left-handed amino acids joined together only with peptide bonds. The experiment produced proteins with an assortment of chemical bonds linking the amino acids in random sequences. In living things, proteins need to be joined with peptide bonds in a specific sequence to be of any use. The experiment of Fox, like that of Miller, seems to show that life could not have formed from random processes, but rather suggests that there is an intelligent design behind life.

There are volumes of data ranging fromconcepts of irreducible complexity, the occurrences of species at just the right time and place, the unique qualities of water and the position of the earth in the solar system, all of which pose problems for the theory of evouition. An objective and analytical mind marvels at the intricate details in living things and at least ponders the idea of intelligent design. The cause of the intelligent design is the realm of religion. Interestingly enough, the scientific method can be used to objectively analyze the religions of the world (theories), test their claims and predictions over time (against history) and conclude whichone is based on fact.

What should we as earth scientists do? Remember what the scientific method requires. We should question every hypothesis, conclusion and especially those ideas that gain widespread favoritism. The issue lies between objective science and biased science.

The reason that we as geologists succeed in finding oil and gas in new places and/or where others have sought it before, is because we question the validity of the theory of those who stated there are no hydrocarbons to be found there (just read the feature article in the April EXPLORER on the Utah discovery). Throughout history, good solid objective science has always produced breakthroughs.

What we need to teach in our schools are the skills to critically evaluate information and draw objectiv conclusions.

Tom Bulling
Katy, Texas