Creationists grasp at straws for their arguments

I refer to Marcia Winborne-Graven's letter on the evolution debate, Journal, Oct. 3.Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science. Jack O'Connell's article on the subject, to which the letter refers, was far too forgiving toward the creationists and I felt that it misrepresented the entire debate between evolution and "intelligent design" by implying that the issue is somehow in serious controversy in the scientific community.Creationists have already decided on what the facts are in their world - whatever the Bible says. They start with an immovable and unshakable assertion (God created the Earth) and then work piecemeal, grasping at straws and looking for any information that is convenient to their foregone conclusions.Evolution theory doesn't say there is no God. It only tries to provide evidence of how the laws of nature could result in the panoply of life that we see here on Earth. It does contradict certain beliefs about God, namely creation, and it also does not require a God, both of which, understandably, can be very threatening to traditional religious thought.What Christianity is Graven talking about? Is it the Christianity that didn't apologize for abusing Galileo, or the Christianity that forced Charles Darwin to recant his whole theory when he was a sick, old man?The problem with non-scientists doing science is they often get something fundamentally wrong. In this case, it's the statement, "Evolution is not a fact, and it's a theory." All scientists, including Charles Darwin, would include evolution under the heading "theory." Scientists believe something until they are presented contrary evidence from a competing theory that makes more sense. There is certainly a lot more evidence for evolution, for instance, than for any theory of gravitation, not to mention creationism or intelligent design.Takasumi KojimaBerkeley