Dear editor,

Alex Varga's June 2 letter, "Creationism is not observable," indicates that evolution is observable while creationism is based on Biblical faith. Darwin's theory was not mentioned!

We don't observe large-scale evolution (macro-evolution). What we observe in plant and animal breeding is only micro-evolution. Darwin's theory predicts that micro-evolution is possible, but this is after the fact of plant and animal breeding. The fossil record shows evolution, and there is biochemical evidence implying common descent, but this evolution may not be Darwin's evolution. Moreover, Darwin's theory of evolution did not predict biological symbiosis, convergent evolution or biochemical complexity at the level of the cell. Darwin's theory does not predict altruism despite the claims of evolutionary psychology. What Darwin's theory does is rationalize itself after the facts of observation, shamefully.

Darwin's theory (by itself) is also based on a literal faith in cause-and-effect while excluding all other interpretations that involve non-causes. Darwin's theory can turn life into a caricature. What is beyond caricature may be completely ignored in the most unscientific way. Darwin's theory can be turned into dogma as much as biblical literalism. To fix this problem, Darwin's theory must remain open to inputs coming from intelligent design, where non-causes are discovered.

Things that represent feelings as caricature may hide what lies beyond, as what lies beyond indicates Kant's thing-in-itself that may not come with a cause. In "Trinity: the Scientific Basis of Vitalism and Transcendentalism" (page 53), I write: "Biblical scriptures are composed of deep allegorical meanings in my view, though literalists may argue for more. A literal interpretation of the Bible may run the risk of missing the allegory completely while taking a metaphor beyond any sensible boundary. Meaning is found in revelation because it is felt, and this implies a deeper connection beyond metaphor and literalism."

Stephen P. Smith

Napa