With regards to the ongoing evolution debate, I think it is worth considering the fundamental difference between the theory of evolution and the Christian Bible. Evolution is a product of science, a discipline firmly rooted in empiricism and, to this end, the great physicist Richard Feynman (probably the most significant contributor to human understanding in the physical sciences since Einstein) enhanced his professional career with a vast poster on his office wall, displaying the words "If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong!".

It has quite rightly been pointed out that there are holes in the theory of evolution that have not yet been filled by concrete data. Indeed, this has been the focus of the Cornish Times evolution debate for many weeks. However, the theory is the best model we currently have to explain the origins of human life, and there is no doubt that there is a great deal more evidence to support evolution than to support the Christian creation (when one examines the DNA structure of living creatures, for example, one finds that we share 97% with the humble chimp, even sharing character traits with other primates). If we cannot fill the holes in the theory, we must develop another model, and this is how science progresses.

Those who irrationally point out that evolution is really another 'religion' betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of empiricism - true scientific method allows us to directly confirm our theories by experiment, and those who accept blind conclusions without references to empirical method are bad scientists. We always take the best model available, and on those grounds, I think we could have rejected the literal creation story many years ago, in the same way that the vast majority of Christians have already rejected the early statements of Christian cosmology. Quite simply, if the biblical account agreed with observation, Darwin would never have been moved to develop his theory in the first place. If some scientists (as referred to by Mr James) wish to investigate the biblical account with a structured analysis, they are of course perfectly entitled to do so, and yet I sincerely doubt that they will produce anything conclusive.

The Christian doctrine requires a leap of faith, removed from any semblance of logic or rationality. This is not to say it is untrue (logic alone could neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, as Russell is keen to point out, and the philosophical definition of truth is a bit sketchy regardless!), merely devoid of rational enterprise. Science, on the other hand, is designed to test itself such that we cannot make bold conclusions without support, and I would argue that such a philosophy is both more suited to the human condition, and more beneficial to the progress of human understanding.

To conclude, I would argue that to compare a strand of theology with a scientific theory is like comparing chalk and cheese! The two are rooted in fundamentally different (though not opposed) philosophical beliefs, and each is so loaded with assumptions that any comparison is meaningless. What we really ask when we attempt to compare the two is whether we subscribe to empiricism or not, and that is a decision for the individual alone.

MARTIN WHITE

Liskeard.