Judge not

Share this article
Have your say

Does Dr Stephen Moreton (Letters, 29 December) seriously suggest that I bow to the authority of an American judge when assessing the viability of evolutionary theory?

If I’m going to take anyone’s opinions into account it will be those of scientists, engineers, information theorists and mathematicians.

Having looked into the matter in some depth, I find genuine evidence for trivial evolutionary change extrapolated wildly to “explain” much more fundamental changes.

I find that the formidable improbability of proposed sequences of events are glossed over with an inadequate “well, there was a long time for it to happen.” I find that the so-called evolutionary tree fades away to dotted lines at every key transition point.

If anyone could convince 
me that unintelligent processes can cobble together the multiple systems of breathtaking sophistication found in even the simplest living cell, I’d believe in the standard evolutionary account.

In fact, the opposite is the case: Intelligent Design theorists have convinced me that it is not 
possible. I will hold and express this view, regardless of American judges.

Richard Lucas


Colinton, Edinburgh

Richard Lucas (Letters, 27 
December) suggests a debate 
between articulate and knowledgeable proponents of evolution and those advocating intelligent design.

Whereas evolution can be traced though fossil records, and even in recent genetic occurrences, I wasn’t aware of any knowledge of the existence of an intelligent designer.

On the contrary, I fully 
acknowledge that half-baked, selective, random and illogical arguments exist that less open-minded individuals try to thrust upon those like themselves 
who are less fortunate to not be educated in evolutionary-backed reasoned processes. In ages past we used to call similar self-delusioned “experts” in the medical field “quacks”.

Ian Boyd

Nunnery Stables

St Albans, Herts