Dear Editor,

I have not yet seen in your letter columns any presentation of what those who believe in evolution see as supporting evidence. There is instead personal criticism, and criticism of religious teachings and doctrines. One should note, though, that the belief in an intelligent creator is not dependent on a belief in religion.

On the basis of genuine scientific observations and tests alone, one could conclude that 'blind' forces acting on inanimate matter cannot produce life and the life forms we see today, and that life had to be deliberately designed and created.

Religion attempts to explain the purpose of the creation, the 'why', 'how', 'when', etc., and that is a different matter altogether.

It should be noted too that not all scientists believe in the theory of evolution. Though many of them may not accept the religious views on creation either, they however do not believe that the theory is a valid and acceptable one. It is very important, therefore, that individuals carefully examine the matter for themselves, scrutinize what both sides present as evidence, and make their own conclusions. The notion that 'scientists believe in evolution' so it must be a fact is extremely misleading. Individuals should have the evidence to convince themselves.

I have seen letter writers present what they see as evidence for an 'intelligent creator', such as the cell's 'software' or the DNA code. Creationists also refer to sexual reproduction. They reason that 'blind' forces cannot separately create a male and a female with separate reproductive systems to match and complement each other and, for instance, with coded instructions to half the number of chromosomes in the germ cells, so that when the sperm and egg meet at conception, the new cell formed will not have an 'overdose' of chromosomes. Creationists see this as 'intelligent design' at work. Believers in evolution should likewise present what they see as supporting evidence.

If evolution did take place then the fossil records should be replete with intermediates between species and general groups. Numerous intermediates should also be in existence today, to the extent that classification becomes extremely difficult. Such intermediates should be identified by the evolutionist, or a good explanation given for their absence. But at the same time variation and adaptation, the limited potential for which is already coded in the organism's DNA, should not be confused with evolution.

I would also like to see the presentation of evidence to support the claim that the effect of random mutations on the DNA will produce a new organism, or improve on the code to the extent that the DNA code of bacteria would eventually become the DNA encoded 'software' instructions to build a human being.

Let us see the evolutionists present their supporting evidence, and let us keep this 'debate' clean.