Two weeks ago, the Strib published some editorials and asked for more reader input. They have a selection of reader mail online now. Unfortunately, they don't bother to say how much mail they received, or what proportion was Intelligent Design creationism crap. They did publish 11 letters, and 3 are on the creationist side. I think. The three are kind of a goofy muddle.

This one, for instance: whose side is Donna Ferber on?

A theory for atheists
I am one person who believes that teaching only the theory of evolution forces many students to demote their faith to tooth-fairy status. Evolution is by nature atheistic. It requires that death be considered a natural part of life, instead of a result of The Fall as described in the Book of Genesis.
Donna Ferber, Rush City, Minn.

That's very honest; yes, I personally think the existence of robust scientific theories that make deities superfluous does tend to demote religion. At the very least, it strips the business of explaining the physical world away from the churches.

Good thing, too. I find the fact that death is a natural part of life far more consoling than a very silly myth involving talking snakes and a pissy, petulant god.

The mouths of experts
Minnesota's new science standards encourage teachers and students to explore the evidence both for and against evolution. Two well-known evolutionists would approve.
As Stanley Salthe, author of "Evolutionary Biology," wrote, "Biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin's theory while they are learning about the theory's strongest claims."
Another evolutionist penned these words in 1859: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." The book was entitled "Origin of Species"; the author was none other than Charles Darwin.
Jean Swenson, St. Paul.

Very good, Ms Swenson! You've got the "teach the controversy" patter down cold!

Here, by the way, is the Darwin quote in context, from his introduction to the Origin. She's got it mostly right.

This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.

He's talking about presenting the full body of evidence; Darwin considered his big book to be only an abstract, only briefly sketching out the outline of his theory.

I'm all for teaching the warts and lacunae of evolutionary biology. That does not involve teaching Intelligent Design creationism, however, which is notable for its lack of evidence for anything it proposes. When people tell me to "teach the controversy", I say "OK. And you go do the work. Your side hasn't earned a hearing yet."

I've saved the best for last. This letter was the first one listed on the front page of the Op-Ex section.

Belief, and blindness
It's too bad that Paul Z. Myers (Op Ex, April 24) doesn't believe in God. If he did, maybe he'd be able to see the truth. The real controversy before us is not about the origins of species or how old the universe is. It's about whether or not there is a God.
Mike Meier, Big Lake, Minn.

Weird. So if I believed in God, I'd recognize that believing in God is controversial? Exactly the opposite has been true, in my experience; it's the believers who are blind to the silliness of the concept.

But I will agree with him that there is no real controversy about the origins of species or the age of the earth. I will be happy to allow him to debate that whole existence of god thing in theology school…just keep the noise out of our science classes.