The original letter to the editor:
I suppose that it was inevitable that the so-called debate about evolution would make its way here. John Petrilli ("Natural law must get very critical review," April 4) claims that the issue is the existence of God. This is, at the least, odd, considering that the theory of evolution makes no claims about such.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophical view; it says nothing about morality.
Science is science, not philosophy or religion, and conflating them is to the detriment of all. Later, Mr. Petrilli changes his argument to one against a naturalistic worldview instead.
I would happily write a great deal more on that subject, but that is outside the scope of this letter. Now, Kelly Antonic ("All theories must get a look by 'science,'" April 4) says that "Intelligent design gets bashed by people saying that it cannot be proved, but evolution is only a theory itself." This is a misunderstanding of what are often-identified flaws in Intelligent Design, and also, a gross misunderstanding of the word "theory."
The problems with Intelligent Design are that nothing could in principle disprove such a hypothesis (it's unfalsifiable) and also, even if true, it makes no testable predictions, and because of these, it's unscientific. Make no mistake, evolution is a theory just like gravity and atoms. In science, a theory is a tested and well-supported hypothesis.
Theories like evolution and gravity are as confirmed as anything in science ever can be.
From a scientific standpoint, there is no question that evolution has occurred, even though there are many specifics still being studied ... much like in any science.

The email received:
What is your undeniable proof of evolution you claim to have if I read between the lines right? Where are the intermediate fossils? Why aren't we seeing any spontaneous generation the past thousand years? Millions of years right? Long ago and far away right? Evolution is just as much a religion because you have to believe that something came from nothing, the chances of life coming about by chance are negligable, I'm talking 10 to the thousandth power. Many theories that support evolution have been disproven and they still teach them as if it was fact. If it was science, then it would alter its theory if it was wrong, but they continue to claim science, but they have no proof! None! If you have proof, please tell, I'm all ears.
Where did the energy come from, the laws, the countless ratios that have to occur to allow life to even exist. The Earth and universe point to a younger Earth if you are fair with science. If you are so certain that evolution is right, then there's nothing to worry about bringing in intelligent design to the classroom.

The reply:
I apologize for taking so long in responding to your email. Honestly, I got busy and completely forgot about it. But, I suppose, better late than never. Anyhow, hopefully, I can clear things up a bit. Please forgive any difficulties you might have in reading the format of my reply, as I shall be quoting sections of what you wrote, and then responding.
First of all, you wrote: "What is your undeniable proof of evolution you claim to have if I read between the lines right?"
I'm sorry to say, you did not read between the lines correctly. I never claimed to have proof of anything whatsoever, and had I claimed to have "proof of evolution", you would have been quite right in calling me on it, though not, I suspect, for the reason you think.
You see, the thing is, you used the word "proof". Since I'm going to stick to science, the word "proof" is irrelevant. Proof is for alcohol, and mathematics. The term of interest is evidence. Evidence is what makes or breaks a scientific theory. Well, not the only thing, but both falsifiability and empirical predictions are subsets of evidence, so it's the major consideration.
However, before I get farther into the evidence, let's clear up what we're talking about when we say 'evolution'. My definition comes from page 974 of Biology, 5th edition, by Worth publishers, and reads as follows: "Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." Since anyone versed in population genetics would not dispute that this occurs, I suspect that you are talking about speciation (the evolutionary process that gives rise to a new species).
Well, aside from the abundance of fossils clearly showing such, there are the numerous instances of speciation which have been observed. You might research some of the following instances thereof;
1)Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)[observed in 1905 by a Mr de Vries]
2)Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) [observed in the 1900's, 1910's, and 1920's]
3)Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) [observed in 1932]
4)Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum) [observed in 1992]
5)Drosophila paulistorum [reported in 1971]
6)Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) [observed in 1988]
There are plenty more, and these are just speciation events observed in the last century.
Next, you asked, "Where are the intermediate fossils?"
Well, a good number of them have been dug up and studied. If you think that the thousands of ones we have aren't enough, consider how little of the earth has been excavated (75% is covered by the oceans, for starters), and how rare it is that conditions are right for fossils to form (if you'd like to learn more on the subject, you might try looking up "taphonomy", which is the study of the processes involved in fossilization). Personally, I'm impressed that we have as good evidence from fossils as we do (and the fossils are hardly the strongest evidence we have).
Continuing on, you queried, "Why aren't we seeing any spontaneous generation the past thousand years?"
From the evidence, it's been estimated that life didn't form on earth for roughly 1 billion years after the earth formed (give or take a few hundred million). That's a thousand thousand thousand years. Further, the atmosphere of early earth had less free oxygen than the atmosphere today.
In case you aren't aware, organsisms lacking the adaptations to deal with oxygen (for example, strictly anaerobic bacteria) are killed by it (interestingly, there are also bacteri, which are anaerobes which are not killed by oxygen, and bacteria which are anaerobic when oxygen isn't present, and aerobic (oxygen using) when oxygen is present). If that weren't enough, there is already life here, with 3 billion years of evolution to help it out. If life were to form again, it would probably be outcompeted almost immediately.
Then, there's the consideration of the fact that humans haven't been looking for it for 1,000 years. The first microscopes (quite necessary for observing microscopic organisms, mind you) weren't invented until 1590, and it was at least another two centuries before even bacteria and viruses (which are far larger and more complex than early life forms are likely to have been) were discovered. So, at best, we've been looking for under 200 years. Finally, we don't really go over the planet with a fine tooth comb. It's entirely possible (though unlikely) that life forms 100,000,000,000 times each month, somewhere on the planet, and odds would still be pretty good that we'd never see it. It's too small for us to notice something like that in some far-flung corner of the globe... or even in the middle of a major city, most likely.
Continuing on, you followed up with, "Millions of years right? Long ago and far away right?
Evolution is just as much a religion because you have to believe that something came from nothing"
Woah, hold on a second, friend. Where did you get this idea? Why do you think something had to come from nothing? Why couldn't god have started the whole ball rolling? Failing that, evolution doesn't address any origins. It's an explanation of what happens to existing life. I think you're thinking of abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-life... a very necessary event, unless you postulate that the universe was created/came into existence with life already in it), or maybe cosmology. We can discuss those later, if you'd like, but please, let's keep this to evolution for now. However, in order to answer your remaining questions, I will delve very briefly into the emerging (still very young, and quite incomplete) science of Abiogenesis.
So, to answer the following, "the chances of life coming about by chance are negligable, I'm talking 10 to the thousandth power."
I would have to ask you, Really? How did you calculate these odds? I'd be interested in seeing your methodology. Also, what exactly do you mean by chance? I think I may see a flaw in your methodology right there. But please, by all means, explain your methods first, and I'll give them a fair review. I don't want to talk about what is (or, in this case, what might possibly be) wrong with your ideas, without having read it. After all, I might be mistaken, and your methodology is correct, in which case it would make quite the interesting read (and you'd be up for a nobel prize). But I digress.
From here, you seem to go off on something of a tangent, in the following: "Many theories that support evolution have been disproven and they still teach them as if it was fact."
Well, I'm sorry, but this is completely irrelevant. Many theories that oppose evolution (and also, alternate theories of evolution) have been disproven. Does that tell you that evolution is true? Of course not. Evolution could not stand or fall on the merits of anything but evolution. Not some other theory which supports evolution. Further, many theories supporting gravity, atoms, chemical bonding, flight, chemical properties, and many other subjects, have also been disproven. This makes not one whit of difference regarding the accuracy of the theories in question.
From here, you move on to, "If it was science, then it would alter its theory if it was wrong, but they continue to claim science,but they have no proof! None!"
You wrote this section without the benefit of having read the first part of my reply, which addressed this directly. Since you brought this subject up twice in the original email, I must take it to mean that there's a pretty severe misunderstanding that you have, and so, I will take special care to ask you to read my reply through several times. If you have any further questions, I can try to answer them myself, or, if I cannot, I will provide you with , to the best of my ability, resources which will enable you to find such answers. But, for the purpose of clarity, I will try to summarize what I wrote earlier: Science doesn't deal in 'proof'. Indeed, I cannot prove to you that I exist. Much like evolution, I could only convince you beyond a reasonable doubt.
At this point, we get to a different topic entirely; "If you have proof, please tell, I'm all ears. Where did the energy come from, the laws, the countless ratios that have to occur to allow life to even exist."
This is, once again, Abiogenesis and Cosmology. We can discuss these as well, but let's do so in a seperate email. Or, if you want, you can leave it at 'god did it'. Why not? Isn't that, basically, what you're arguing, anyhow? Regardless, for this email, I'd like to stick mostly to evolution.
Your next point was, "The Earth and universe point to a younger Earth if you are fair with science."
Well, I agree completely! Every scrap of evidence that humans have found have indicated that the Earth is substantially younger than the Universe. Evidence shows that the universe has existed in its present form for roughly 14.5 billion years now, while the earth is a measely 4.5 billion years old. Not even a contest, there.
Finally, you concluded with, "If you are so certain that evolution is right, then there's nothing to worry about bringing in intelligent design to the classroom."
Oh, honestly, I have no problem with Intelligent Design being covered in schools. My only problem is with it being taught as if it were science (ie, in science classes). Really, I have two reasons for this. First of all, the U.S. lags behind pretty much all of the rest of the first world countries (and some second world countries) in education, and teaching non-science as science is hardly going to improve the situation, and I care about the state of education in the country I live in. Secondly, I'm ethically opposed to lying to children and calling it 'education'. I have quite a number of concerns about education in the US as it is, and adding more by telling impressionable students that something, which is only peripherally (at best) related to science, is science, is hardly on my list of desired achievements. However, if, for example, science classes were to use Intelligent Design as an example of what isn't science, or if they were to scientifically evaluate the evidence of Intelligent Design in science class, that would be fine. However, to teach something as science, when it is clearly not, is, at best, dishonest.
I know my reply has been rather lengthy, and I don't really want to make it much longer, but, I feel I ought to write something other than simply replies to the points you have made. So, I apologize for adding more to this already lengthy email, but I have a few points and observations that I feel I ought to bring up.
First of all, it seems to me that you have conflated evolution with cosmology and abiogenesis, which are, in reality, two entirely different scientific fields. Cosmology deals with the origin of the universe, age of the universe, formation of stars and planets, and so on. Abiogenesis is the origin of life from non-life. Evolution is what happens to imperfect self-replicators, one case of which is life.
Further, there is extensive evidence of evolution. If you would actually like me to present such evidence, I will happily do so, although it may take some time (hopefully, days or weeks, not months, though). Of course, I am not (yet) a professional in the field, but I think I can, at the least, do a competent job of presenting the information.
As a final side note, I noticed that you did not actually reply to a single one of the points I made in my original letter to the editor, and, instead, based your e-mail to me on what you percieved to be my attitudes. Do you disagree with my letter, and feel that Intelligent Design is scientific? If so, I will have many more questions about your views on the subject.
Thank you for your time and interest, and I hope that we can establish a meaningful dialogue.