Justin Garcia’s September 1st letter describing the recent exchanges on evolution as “pointless” was partially right; the debate does indeed seem tedious and unproductive. However, Garcia overlooks the ethical duty that good and reasonable people have to respond when evil, dangerous ideas make their way into print. The more seductive and popular the idea, the greater the duty; one might safely ignore a letter from the Flat Earth Society but not one from a Holocaust denier. Given the terrible threat to liberty that the Christian right poses, and given the recent success of evolution deniers in Kansas, it seems reasonable to take them seriously. Therefore, when someone writes in to say all religions except his are false and there is scientific evidence for Biblical creation myths, the reasonable sorts have to rebuke such hogwash. It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Now, if the Christian rightists would stop advocating pseudo-science, we could let the debate fade away, or go on to more interesting points. For example, I’m fascinated by the Christian concept of redemption. A loving god who tortures people for being imperfect? How can one not be intrigued by such a strange concept? Roger J. M. Hughes

English