Wow, we sure got the year off with a couple of misinformed letters to the editor this time around! I am referring specifically to Andy Merrick’s letter of the 25th. Specifically, Merrick first claims that he is not an expert on the creation/evolution “debate” (most rational people concede that this debate was over long ago). While this humility is a refreshing attitude for a Christian to take, I was quite taken back when our self-espoused amateur biologist told us there is “astounding, concrete evidence that supports the creation theory.” Tell us, Oh Socratic one, from where does this knowledge come if you know not the subject matter? Furthermore, he doesn’t even give us any reasons that he might be right. I, for example, have heard the good arguments (they are still pretty bad) for creationism and none are in this letter. Next, apparently satisfied that he has this whole evolution-is-bunk-thing bagged away, he simply ASSERTS that macroevolution is false! Worse, he follows that up by saying that the plum pudding model of the atom is wrong, so (I can only guess this is where he is going with his argument) all or most scientific modeling is wrong also. This kind of logic is like me saying we have been to Mount Olympus, and we have proven there are no gods there. Therefore, Christianity is wrong. Now, it would simply be dogmatic of me to assert that evolution is correct, but I can do better. Now, scientific modeling can be wrong, as you say. A long time ago, special creation was the scientific model. It made sense at the time and explained the existence of things. However, there were things it could not explain adequately. For example, the similarities in different animals remained unexplained. Also, it predicted some things that simply were not true. For example, that the sun orbits the earth, which in turn is the center of the universe. This evidence started piling up against special creation, as did the evidence against the plum pudding atomic model. Now, we have a better model. The Big Bang theory explains a whole lot more phenomenon than special creation, such as cosmic background radiation and relative density of stars. Evolution explains more about diversity of species than Genesis. If the fossil record is any indication and 99 percent of all creatures are extinct, then obviously God sucks at designing animals. Now, I am not an expert on the subject, but see how I am attempting to back up my assertions with evidence? I know more about the Big Bang than I do about evolution, are there any biologists willing to lend a helping hand? Next, Merrick takes a good column on the similarities of different religions and turns it into a neat, hateful little package of venom. Not only do his statements about Buddhism show a total lack of knowledge or forethought, but even if I grant that there is only one true religion, he still has not proven that it is Christianity. Furthermore, you seem to dogmatically believe that relativism is an integral part of modern science and western thought. Well, let me be the first to tell you that relativism does not mean that the relativist can hold two sets of contradictory ideas at once. For that, you need something more sinister, like organized religion. Relativism simply means we have no moral framework for judging the actions of people who are not acting under the same principles as us. Now, Merrick utilizes the ubiquitous “argument from incredulity,” which goes something like this: “I don’t understand it, so it’s wrong.” If we do not need to evoke the hand of God in simple cell division and procreation, then why do you insist on inserting him at all? Yes, I concede that evolution may not be the easiest thing to understand, but it’s just a series of steps. To walk to the other side of the room, all I need to do is take a series of steps, and that’s all bacteria needed to do to turn into us. Merrick concludes his proselytization by telling us many books have been written about creation. Well, it may come as no surprise to you that many books have been written on Santa Claus, and he is no closer to being real for the effort. There are also plenty of books in favor of evolution. The last time I checked, they were called textbooks, written by experts and used by experts to teach their classes. I suggest a trip to your local biologist and astronomer if you want to know more about how things actually work. Keith Twombley

Computer science