Surely I'm not the only reader disturbed by the content of recent letters on creationism? Two weeks ago the writer favoured the "certainty" of creationism, which apparently looks at the evidence and declares its explanation confidently, over the "uncertainty" of science, which looks at the evidence and develops a best theory or, horrors, competing theories that are subject to change as new evidence comes to light.
Last week, Graham Browne wrote that it was "no more absurd to believe in creation(ism) than it is in a chance mix of chemicals ..." (Letters, 3 June).
Let's accept for a moment the "chance mix of chemicals" theory of the origin of life on earth. If it could be shown then that the mix originally came to earth on a meteorite, would the scientists stop there? No, they would attempt to investigate the source of the meteorite, and so on.
But how does a creationist explain their creator? They don't, and that is why creationism, together with intelligent design, is not science and why science is not faith.
Graham Jump, Starting a PGCE in September, Guildford, Surrey.