Evolution v creation

Helen Scott (Waikato Times letters, October 14) has suggested the reading of a book she describes as a “rip-snorting demolition of creationism”.

It is unfortunate to see this level of emotion as it can replace objectivity. There is in fact a small mountain of books in support of both sides of the evolution v creation debate, the rational approach would surely be to read the same number of each.

I have yet to meet anyone who has done this and failed to be convinced that evolution is scientifically indefensible.

I know of no controlled evolution v creation debate on radio, TV or in formal debating competition, where the evolution side has won. Where only science (and not belief or emotion) is admissible, evolution proves to be in a “no win” situation. In fact in Australian universities, creation scientists now have difficulty finding scientists willing to take the evolution side for structured debate on the subject.

Darwin labelled the belief system he regretted starting, as a religion. This possibly explains the emotive, even zealous, response from Helen Scott and other defenders of the “faith”.

FRED BARRETT

Tirau