An Argument That Goes Way Back

Re “Does God Have Back Problems Too?” Commentary, June 27: Although it’s encouraging to see a response refuting the “intelligent design” theories, one of the problems with even engaging in such a debate is that it plays into the hands of creationists who want to bring religion and the Bible into the classroom.

Intelligent design pseudo-science, which sometimes offers a seemingly reasonable acceptance of evolution, is simply the avant-garde of creation “science” dressed up in a new package. Although David P. Barash makes this point, I fear that once you lend credibility to the creationists’ tactic, the camel’s nose is in the tent.

Peter Hess

Los Angeles

*

The important question concerning evolution versus intelligent design is how nonliving matter was converted to that of living? Evolutionists can’t answer this most fundamental question. There is no credible naturalistic explanation for the existence of life.

A creationist or intelligent design theorist believes that the evidence points to the existence of a designer. One may look at a watch and picture a watchmaker. Look at a car and picture a team of designers and assemblers.

If those in science persist in their dogmatic assertions that life can only be the result of purposeless and random processes (naturalism), then they will never see the evidence that invalidates this belief.

Gary Kindt

Glendora

*

Barash’s suggestions for improvements in human design are laughable at best. His proposal for a zippered or trap-door exit to the birth canal through the abdominal wall, or an abdominal vagina are hardly worthy of consideration. His design would keep surgeons busy around the clock reconstructing the abdominal wall.

Having spent a professional lifetime as a surgeon, I have developed great wonder and respect for human design and physiology. I am grateful that Barash was not God.

Ronald J. Sisel MD

Fallbrook

*

Barash’s article on the folly of intelligent design is about the most thoughtless piece I’ve ever read on the subject. With all the thought-provoking debates on this subject in print, one would think that he would check one out to see how easily his argument can be shot down. It’s his opinion that the body is poorly designed. Though most intelligent people couldn’t disagree more, let’s go with his argument.

Poorly designed or not, after thousands of years of all the brainpower of the Earth combined, man has never produced a seed that ingeniously enters a female from a male (that in itself is quite remarkable), fertilizes and produces a living being that has a brain greater than all computers; a cardiovascular system including miles of veins; a central nervous system; visual, auditory, reproductive and digestive systems; arms, legs, hands and feet; sensory devices; a skeleton; muscles; ligaments; free will and, among the endless list, consciousness.

Although Barash points out that the body wears out, it’s interesting that even man’s genius has never created an engine as efficient as the heart, running a nonstop marathon for up to 120 years. I highly doubt that that is the product of chance.

David Bore

Winnetka

*

To Barash’s list of badly engineered human body parts I’d like to add a couple more: the gall bladder and the appendix. Not only do we live perfectly well without them, but their only function seems to be to provide income to surgeons.

Jonathan D. Lawrence MD

San Juan Capistrano