In response to Mr. Fulton's and Mr. Ortmann's letters to the editor:

First, Mr. Ortmann, I agree that evolution is a religious outlook on science. However, evolution tries to answer the questions we've discussed by appealing to evidence. The problem is, Mr. Ortmann, there is little to no evidence confirming Darwinism. We see microevolution and minor adaptation, extinct species and our modern animals, but how come we do not see mutations proving to be advantageous or transition species in the fossil record, for starters? I've talked with two high school biology teachers and a former neonatologist on this subject and they say that we have no evidence proving helpful mutations. When a child has Down Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis, for example, we never look at that and say "Wow! That evolution thing is working!" In addition, we have no evidence in the fossil record or modern observations of species with "helpful" mutations. In addition, we have never found fossils showing the transition of species. We do not observe animals adapting on a macroevolutionary scale.

As for trying to generate life in a lab, Mr. Ortmann admitted that proteins are hard to construct and cells generated by laboratory take forever to grow. So, given this evidence, how can "evolutionists show us an evolved protein" when there is evidence for growing them in a lab but none for specifically evolved proteins? If our body replicates cells in a few seconds, and we can replicate cells in 24 hours, how much longer will a random, unguided process take? That's why few people try to undertake this kind of research - the odds are astronomically set against success. I'll bring in some statistics later on.

This brings me to Mr. Fulton's arguments.

1. I understand that species don't evolve overnight - that's a given regardless of stance on the theory. We do see microevolution, as I explained earlier. What we cannot see, nor have past evidence for, is macroevolution. How does changing a few proteins eventually transform primordial soup into a species like Homo Sapiens?

2. A long time. That's the answer Mr. Fulton and I agree on. The question is, how long? The average human body has 37.2 trillion cells (stat courtesy of the Smithsonian) with over a billion different molecules and who knows how many atoms. How could those assemble in random, unguided steps? It would take a nearly infinite amount of time. The probability of randomly assembling a protein of 300 amino acids is 1 out of 2.04 x 10 to the 390th (courtesy of the TalkOrigins archive). Most scientists calculate any probabilities of 1 out of 10 to the 15th as nearly impossible.

3. As for taking the Bible literally, how do we read the newspaper? Literally. If the writer says an event happened, we assume that the writer meant to communicate a literal event. If a novel writer writes about an event, real or fictional, we assume the event is literal (true is another question). We assume writings are literal unless the author indicates otherwise. Following this logic, there is reason to believe that the Bible can be taken literally.

Defending the Bible would require a separate letter to the editor and is a debate for another time. For the time being, God is not in a box because by definition and the Bible, He is a being of perfection that cannot be contained. He can create a complex universe because by definition and the Bible, He is complex. This is rational thinking.

Mr. Fulton admitted himself that the universe is complex. So how can a concept of randomness create a universe, yet something more complex like humans cannot? Neither can truly create - a Being greater than both force or human is the only adequate answer. In addition, where is the scientific evidence against the creation account in the Bible? Evolution is not evidence - it is called a "theory" for a reason. Here is where I agree with Mr. Ortmann - this place is where science ends and where we need to find an answer outside of the natural to explain the origin of the natural.

Chris Major is a Coeur d'Alene resident.