From Gerry Swan

CONOR O'Riordan (Letters, 25 March) accepts that serious scientific debate is ongoing between two opposing theories: evolution and intelligent design. By implication, he also accepts that the evolution theory attempts to account for the origin and complexity of life.

Neither is true. The theory of evolution of species is just that . . . a scientific theory that makes no attempt to explain the origin of life itself. No scientific theory claims to be complete or indeed the last word on its root subject. Newtonian gravitation was surpassed by Relativity, which in turn was qualified by Quantum Theory.

Indeed, all scientific theories are inherently subject to change and require ongoing study. Some people have difficulty in accepting that random mutation fully explains evolutionary change, given the speed with which change takes place and the ability of embryos to selfcorrect. I share their difficulty.

This, however, is only one element of a theory which provides many other answers to the broad question of species evolution.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. To qualify as a scientific theory, a proposal must be subject to verificaton and prediction. Intelligent design is subject to neither. It is a faith-based belief that only divine intervention can explain all that is complex in nature.

Personally, I cannot believe that an intelligent designer would create a cruel system where each level in the chain of life preys on its immediate lower level and where the bulk of species are periodically wiped out only for the whole process to start over, time after time.

Conor O'Riordan places undue emphasis on the views of scientists in areas that are not their speciality. Their views on such can carry no more than those of any other person. I await an alternative and better scientific explanation to Darwinism for the evolution of species. As regards the genesis of life itself, no broadly accepted scientific theory exists today on this issue. Views range from deep space, the planet Mars, and earth's oceans to deep within the earth's crust.

Perhaps this is a case for divine inspiration.

Gerry Swan

Fishery Lane Naas Co Kildare

From Christina Storey

I AM compelled to write to you after reading the letter last Sunday from Conor O'Riordan regarding "dissent from Darwinism". He celebrated the fact that "another 100 scientists have joined the ranks of scientists from around the world publicly stating their doubts about the adequacy of Darwin's theory of evolution".

In response, the US National Center for Science Education (Oakland, California, www. ncseweb. org) states that "evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence."

Mr O'Riordan's comments remind me of an episode of Friends where kooky Phoebe asks Ross (the palaeontologist) if there is a possibility that evolution may be proven incorrect. Being a true scientist, he admits that it may be someday proven to be incorrect. She delights in apparently causing his whole world view to collapse so easily, but to my mind, most logical people will admit that evolution is a theory, like any other, and is acceptable as a working hypothesis until proven wrong or the evidence gathered refines it or replaces it with something more accurate. This doesn't mean that incomplete evidence for Darwinian theory is evidence that evolution is false and intelligent design is true.

Regarding 'Darwin Day', it is proposed by many that February 12th, Charles Darwin's birthday and anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, be celebrated each year (www. darwinday. org).

Many people are grateful that Darwin provided an alternative explanation of life to that provided by the Book of Genesis, and consider his achievement and its impact on our understanding of the natural world to be worthy of celebration.

There are already many religious festivals in the calendar . . .why not a secular one enjoyable by all humanity regardless of creed?

Christina Storey PhD CChem MRSC 1 Bellevue Park Passage West Co Cork

A not-very-important sign-off to the news

From Patrick Smyth

LAST night (29 March), I watched bewildered the final report on RTE's late evening news; a pointless account of the annual VIP style awards. I don't know what is more disconcerting; the fact that they devoted a sizeable portion of their broadcast to an event which is at best completely irrelevant and unnewsworthy, or the fact that RTE News, paid for with public money, was shamelessly promoting a wholly corporate event.

Perhaps RTE News should employ a full-time celebrity correspondent, a la Sky News, to give these matters the full attention that they deserve.

Patrick Smyth Bushy Park Road Terenure Dublin 6

Regarding Gay's clash of heads of state

From Keith Nolan

GAY Mitchel Fine Gael TD/MEP has posed the question: "Without diminishing the office of the President of Ireland, what role would we be prepared to consider for the British Monarch?" My question is: "What role will the British allow our President in a part of our country?"

Keith Nolan Caldra House Caldragh Carrick~on~Shannon, Co Leitrim

The future versus 900 years of history

From Cathleen Knowles McGuirk

ACCORDING to Dick Keane (Letters, 25 March), if anyone should have the temerity to invoke the name of a dead patriot, Irish or otherwise, they disturb his/her rest (as stated in the last line of his letter re Robert Emmet). He rebukes me for my "nationalist" views and proceeds to give me a history lesson. There was no need to do so, Mr Keane, as I am well acquainted with Ireland's history since the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169, before that and up to the present day. Rather longer than the 400 years he allows.

I am not going to address all the points he makes, but I do find objectionable his pejorative use of the word "nationalist". As far as unionists are concerned, I firmly believe that in a New Ireland (united), the unionists . . .known for their business acumen . . . would play a significant and worthwhile part in a ninecounty Ulster, or anywhere else for that matter.

Cathleen Knowles McGuirk Ulverton Court Dalkey Co Dublin

Gender inequality a fact, not a quandary From Anne Nally

I REFER to Ann Marie Hourihane's article 'Trocaire turns being female into a ticking time bomb' (News, 11 March). I would like to point out to Ms Hourihane that Trocaire doesn't turn females into anything. It is a fact that being born a female in many countries today means that one is deprived of human rights, even the right to life itself.

As for Ms Hourihane being "worried about children", and the effects such an advertisement would have on them, my fourth-year class of 16-year-olds in Mount Mary College, Cork, applauded the ad. They want gender inequality dealt with now, and gender equality enforced in all countries.

Mrs Anne Nally 46, The Rise Bishopstown Cork