Dear Editor,

I wish to respond briefly to the letter of Mr. Gavin Francisco (10.7.01) in which he seemed to have disagreed with an opinion of mine (SN 7.7.2001).

I believe that Mr. Francisco misunderstood my observation. I intended to point out that a debate exists between those who ascribe to Christian dictates, which state that the Earth and its inhabitants were created by God, and scientists/observers who propose a chemical origin of life. This debate is futile as the opposing sides argue on the basis of completely different value systems.

One need only note the ease with which Mr. Justin De Freitas scientifically dispatched Noah and his companions recently, in the letter columns, to realise that the odds do not favour the nebulous "scientific" arguments proposed by Christians who attempt to take the debate onto scientific ground.

And this is my point, Christians usually venture onto scientific turf to battle the scientists. In fact a man of Christian faith should not have to prove his righteousness to a scientist if he truly believes within himself. If I may use Mr. De Freitas and Noah for a further example, a staunch Christian presented with that letter and the structural impossibilities of the Ark will most likely say "God provides". There is no argument to such a pronouncement. Hence no debate is possible.

Mr. Francisco says "we have still not gone beyond his [Albert Einstein] equation of E=MC2". This pronouncement, in addition to making absolutely no sense, represents a prime example of seemingly scientific "facts" which I alluded to in my previous letter. These so called facts serve only to cloud the issue and are usually highly inaccurate, yet persuasive because it seems to originate from a universally respected person.

Mr. Francisco implies that the equation, E=MC2, is a "reconciliation of matter and energy (the seen and the unseen)", which correlates to science and religion, which are also "the seen and the unseen", thus Einstein proves the existence of God and this somehow ties itself to my original observation that a debate between the Christian view of creation and Evolution is futile.

The limitations of this medium and my promise to be brief preclude me from detailing the lack of logic in Mr. Francisco's letter and from explaining the significance of an equation which calculates energy using mass and the speed of light. I should merely like to say that his reasoning is illogical.

I wish to reiterate my contention that there is no common ground between the Christian view of creation and Evolution, there are two completely different value systems involved. Debate is futile and serves only to cloud the issues and lengthen the time needed for a genuinely curious person to discern the facts.