The letters to the editor section of Saturday’s Post had a great response to a recent profile of an evangelist for the crap known as "intelligent" design. Since the paper hasn’t seen fit to make the letter available online, here it is for your reading pleasure.

Michael Powell’s May 15 Style article "Doubting Rationalist" about "intelligent design" proponent Phillip Johnson missed the point about the supposed controversy surrounding evolution.

Johnson is a lawyer, with no training in biology. He has apparently mistaken his lack of formal training and knowledge in the subject with "having a point of view".

Powell and others have apparently mistaken Johnson’s academic competence in one area for credibility in a completely different field. Would Powell offer me the same courtesy if I challenged some fundamental pillar of law, with my biology degrees as evidence of my academic prowess? Or would I simply be dismissed as a crackpot?

The real issue is that unlike religion, politics, and law, science is not a popularity contest of ideas. Scientists seek the best explanation for data, not the story that makes the most people happy. That is why science has been spectacularly successful at explaining the physical realities of the universe, and theology has been spectacularly unsuccessful at the task.

Historically, religion has been on the wrong side of almost every "controversy" surrounding new scientific discoveries.

If you want a nice story that might make you feel happy for a time, ask a theologian, politician or lawyer. If you really need to know how something works, ask a scientist.

— Fred Kourmadas, Bristow

I couldn’t have said it better!