Dear Editor,
An authority on Charles Darwin's life (J. Rachels, Oxford Press, 1991) stated that "Darwin died confident that his view would prevail." So, what is the source of David Roberts' assertion that, "Right before he died . . . Darwin denounced evolution as a probable theory?" The point is moot because it is irrelevant to the validity of Darwinian Evolution.
Roberts, an aerospace engineering senior, appears to misunderstand one of the fundamental laws of nature, or perhaps he is purposely misrepresenting the Second Law of Thermodynamics. From his "Skittles" analogy of the chemical DNA, I assume that, if in charge of building a spacecraft, Roberts would take a box of metal pieces, shake it up, and hope that the pieces fall into place. Mechanistic, or non-supernatural views of the origin of DNA require some assumptions — for example, lots of time, an outside energy source, and a mechanism for the pre-life occurrence of small organic compounds. These assumptions are not leaps of faith—they are testable. Roberts' personal belief is perfectly valid, and it might be true — then, so might any other creation story invoking supernatural forces. Explanations invoking the supernatural have no place in the scientific arena.
Anthony A. Echelle
Professor of Zoology
Dear Editor
I had several objections to David Roberts' column refuting the theory of evolution. His denial was based entirely on his belief in God and that Darwin apparently didn't believe his theory either.
Well I believe in GodÑhowever, I also think that things in nature have evolved over time. While this statement may seem contradictory to David, I don't see a problem in believing in both God and evolution. He describes the creationist viewpoint with the story of Adam and Eve, and yet Darwin spent years of doing research before unveiling his theory.
Speaking scientifically, many would find it easier to believe a theory sustained by evidence rather than a story based almost completely on faith. This is where science and religion differ, they both seek truth and yet the former relies on physical proof, whereas the latter relies on faith.
David's attempt to prove the implausibility of evolution with a Skittles experiment is feeble at best and he should not be telling people they should not believe in evolution. I cannot offer any solution to this controversy, nor do I think one is needed as long as an individual can decide for themselves what they believe in.
Michael Tupper
Political Science Senior