Editor’s Note: This largely unintelligible letter uses a lot of big words (teleological, entropy, etc.), but doesn’t apply them in any way that would support Ms. Hupal’s point. When I read this letter, I felt that my article had achieved its purpose, because none of the people who wrote to the newspaper or to me directly to complain about it seemed able to address its central point: Why do 97% of scientists believe in evolution and only 3% think it’s false? Are all those scientists in the majority just dumb, misguided or is there some vast left-wing conspiracy to undermine belief in God? By the way, is there a more-perfect definition of religion that the phrase Ms. Hupal quotes below: “opinions divorced from knowledge.”

Evolution is not fact

To the editor:

Professor Mark Drought was given half of the Opinions page (Feb. 26) to declare that evolution is irrefutable fact and anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant and probably one of those dreaded Christians or Muslims. I would like to think that your newspaper would offer as much space to any of the many scientists who dare to differ with the professor’s conclusions. How about it? To address Mr. Drought’s assertions in a 350-word letter to the editor is hardly adequate, but I would like to touch on a couple of points.

Mr. Drought’s friend challenged him to a debate. He declined, stating, “This certainly would have been a religious argument.” It is indeed. The debate between evolution and creation is not one of science vs. religion, but of two differing world views, each based upon certain presuppositions. Science is a means of objective inquiry. Yet Darwinists, with religious zeal, limit reality to naturalistic processes. The tenants [sic] of Darwinism — naturalism, life from non-life and chance — are not observed or confirmed through empirical, observational science. In fact, scientific laws such as the second law of thermodynamics, entropy and others, along with teleological and cosmological arguments, point to intelligent design.

Mr. Drought insists evolution must be taught in public schools because it’s “scientific fact.” But based upon modern science’s own definition, being “that which can be measured and observed,” evolution is rendered nothing more than a theory.

Surely the professor would agree that tolerance and diversity demand that America’s schoolchildren deserve to hear about other origin accounts. Why must those whose bible is the humanist manifesto, who worship at the altar of Darwin, remain unchallenged as they force their dogma on impressionable young people? Socrates said that, “Opinions divorced from knowledge are ugly things.” Children deserve education, not indoctrination.

One need not be a scientist to recognize life’s intricate, magnificent design. Perhaps Darwin himself understood as he wrote to his friend and colleague, “Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.”

Laural Hupal
Greenwich, Connecticut

Click here to return to Evolutionary Biology for the Nonscientist.

Click here to return to the Mark Drought home page.