Dear Gazette,

I would like to respond to Mr. Vladimir Doktorovich's comment in his letter to the editor (Intelligent Design is no Theory; Jan. 19, 2006). The reason The Gazette printed my letters is the same reason that his was printed – The Gazette, to its credit, is largely unbiased.

As for the rest of Mr. Doktorovich's letter: It seems evolutionists want their theory to carry the day simply because they think anybody opposed to it is either uninformed or just plain stupid. The real problem is that we have evolutionists bent on an atheistic naturalistic explanation of origins. They are unwilling or unable to go where the evidence actually leads. Where else, but in evolution, do we accept the explanation that something just happens out of nothing? Where else, but in evolution, do we accept the laughable idea that order arises from chaos, all by itself? Where else, but in evolution, do we accept that scientific and statistical impossibilities (e.g. a less than one-in-a-million chance) are not only possible but validate the events that constitute evolution? That's like seeing a black hole in the ground and saying that it came from lightning striking 45 times in a row, in the same place, even though there is a one-in-a-zillion chance that it could have occurred. Evolutionists not only want us to accept a less than one-in-a-quadrillion chance for the initial event of the origin of the universe but that the whole of life is built on such statistical improbabilities piled on top of each other! That's not science; that's blind faith or superstition and a horribly weak theory.

The question before the reader and all thinking people is this: Do we accept the theory of evolution simply because evolutionists say it must be fact, or do we continue to explore where the evidence leads even if it leads to an intelligent designer?