" I do noot understand why you insist on ignorantly debunking evolution, you seem like a fairly literate person. What's the agenda? For example, you say, "It would, however, seem quite plain that evolution is actually based on unobservable data, if for no other reason than that the past is, by nature, unobservable..." BIG DUH here! For one example of so many, just peruse--it's a trade not a "specialty" book--Andrew's Knoll's Life on a Young Planet. Observable evidence of the past abounds on planet Earth. "

" This is SO VERY WELL stated. Wonderful letter. "

" If there is no proof one way or the other, then we only have faith to lean on. Isnt it much easier to beleive life was created by a being than it just came to be? "

" I believe this is why it is called the "Theory" of Evolution. "

" How does electricity work? The only particle we can directly observe is a photon. For everything else we rely on indirect observations. "

" So which creator is it? I get so tired of hearing the argument from the creationist that evolution is flawed, yet they never question their own beliefs regarding creation. Oh right "It's because the bible tells you so" as the old song goes. Yet who wrote the bible? Who wrote the old testament, new testament, the King James version? King James edited gods work? Apparently using the lords name in vain is a sin but editing the content of his literary works is perfectly fine with him. "

" Life doesn't appear to "arise by chance" because: 1) if it did, it would instantly be outcompeted by all the other forms of life already here on earth, so we'd never notice it before it was gobbled up by something else, or it starved for lack of fuel, and 2) there were presumably millions of years, and a whole planet, before this happened in the first place, and 3) early forms of life would be very very small. Obviously sophisticated life won't just "pop into existance" from nothing. But a complex chemical chain reaction could have, and that could have gradually become more and more sophisticated over many millions of years. "

" Rick Protz wrote an excellent article. I loved it. However, some readers still didn't get the truth of what Rick was saying. Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists. If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell. After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell. If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology. Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES. Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE! Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others! "

" It may not be possible to observe past events but that does not mean they do not leave behind observable and testable evidence. We routinely assume we can determine which gun fired a bullet based on ballistic evidence, even though we didn't observe the actual shot. We assume we can determine that a person handled an object based on fingerprint evidence. We assume we can determine who the biological father of Ana Nicole Smith's child was based on DNA evidence. However, we can't determine that human beings and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor based on multiple lines of mutually consistent fossil, DNA, anatomical, and behavioral evidence? It seems to me that the only time people have a problem with the idea of drawing conclusions about past events based on the evidence they left behind is when they just don't like those conclusions. "

" I only read the first couple of paragraphs of your piece. You make the mistake of confusing evolution with the origin of life rather than as a process that is still going on today. We have plenty of observable data and you would have only had to visit your local university to research this. Sure, there is a historical element to our theories - geology, biology, astronomy, etc. This shouldn't be viewed as a weakness. James Hutton coined the phrase, the present is the key to the past. We may not be precise in our understanding of the past but we can gain some knowledge and make predictions on what we come up with. If our experiments back up our predictions then it's reasonable to think we're on the right track in unravelling the mysteries. But, the biggest mistake you make is in not distinguising between the origin and the evolution of life. The primordial soup hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not dependent on the validity of this hypothesis. It stands on its own and has over 200 years of mounting evidence backing it up. It's also worth distinguishing between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. The fact evolution is simply, biological change through time. The theory is natural selection. With both observable and non-observable data, the great progress we've made in understanding life based on evolution is likely what's keeping you alive and healthy. I think all the people who don't accept the discoveries of science should be denied access to the civilization these discoveries have created. There's so many bumbling idiots in this world, we don't need our journalists to become one. Do your homework next time. "