Well, I wrote that letter about the teaching of evolution in schools (March Explorer) in order to stimulate discussion, and, as evidenced by the letters to the EXPLORER, it certainly succeeded.

So far, I have learned three main things from these responses.

• To argue for the primacy of evidence-based science teaching is apparently to be dogmatic.

This is a cleaver argument. The push to include creation science or intelligent design in the science curriculum can be made to appear as supporting free inquiry. The problem is, of course,that there is no evidence to support these teachings. They constitute faith-based assertions regarding a Creator, and reflect only one set of interpretations of the meaning of the Bible, to say nothing of other sacred books.

Since the time of Nicolaus Steno in the 17th century there have been plenty of religious scholars prepared to accept evidence-based naturalistic explanations of the world around us. If creation science is to be taught anywhere it should be in religion classes, where all the other creation concepts are given equal time.

Oh, and by the way, Steno, who was one of the first to understand the true meaning of fossils and laid down the foundations of modern stratigraphy, was beatified a saint by Pope John Paul II in 1988.

Nevertheless, it was an error on my part to label evolution a "fact." What I should have said is that there are an overwhelming number of observations that are consistent with evolutionary theory and no scientific evidence, yet, that disproves it. As Karl Popper taught us, a theory is as good as its ability to explain and predict.

Two of the lettersin the June EXPLORER, therefore, point to gaps in the fossil record, the im;licatoin being that these indicate serious flaws in the theory of evolution. As such, gaps constitute negative evidence. One by one, however, such gaps are being filled, the most recent such occasoin being the stunning discoveries in China of transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.

• If you can label something as "liberal media spin" you can dismiss it.

In fact, one of the most useful sources for information about the creationism debate is Geotimes, hardly an example of the "liberal media." This magazine is published by the American Geological Institute, of which AAPG is a member. For example, the June issue has a report that several IMAX theatres in the southern states have refused to show the movie "Aliens of the Deep" because of references to evolution.

• The more convincing the evidence for evolution, the more this supposedly illustrates the power of the Creator.

I, too, have seen the Burges Shale fossils and read Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life. To me, the astonishing variety of life exhibited by this formation is the perfect illustration of the power of random mutation to create different body designs, given enough time for forces of selection to do their work. Many of the organisms that look strange to us are forms that were not adaptable to changing environments, and consequently became extinct.

You can believe in the wonders of creation and ties to a Creator if you prefer, but the evidence clearly indicates that evolution "works."

Many of the arguments for intelligent design are specious. For example, the argument that it is statistically improbable that complex organisms like humans, or even the complex body components like the eye, could be created by random mutations is entirely misleading. Complex systems are generated by incremental change, the direction of which is only clear in hinsight. At every stage in the evolution of the eye (for example), from a simple light-sensitive organ to its present form, the incremental modification would have offered an advantage to the organism possessing it. That is why it survived, not becuse it had it in mind from the first to evolve into a modern eye!

Let me emphasize in closing that I am not debating the individual right to hold strong religious believe (which is none of my business), but the growing confusion in the education system between religion, whichis faith-based, and science, which is based on demonstratable, empirical observations.

Andrew Miall
Toronto, Canada