I have seen several letters to the editor from people who claim to be rational and scientific in their thinking. They seem to equate anyone who does not swallow the theory of evolution with medicine men or superstitious magical thinkers.

Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

If I understand evolutionary theory correctly, it is in brief a selection of the fittest species through random variation over time. Consider that given enough monkeys, enough typewriters and enough time one could eventually find the complete works of Shakespeare in what was randomly hammered out. Imagining this scenario one would expect to wade through incredible volumes of paper not Shakespeare to get to the jewel produced by random chance.

There is no such volume of evidence in our observable world to back this random approach to the origins of life and the many highly specialized species that we observe. Why are we not up to our necks in evidence of the vast number of species that didn't survive?

This lack of observable evidence is the greatest problem with evolutionary theory. Over time, this lack of evidence has been explained by increasingly complex and conjectural additions to the theory. Belief in the theory of evolution requires leaps of faith that I find astounding.

I highly recommend Phillip E. Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial, to anyone interested in a discussion of this controversy from a rational, scientific approach.

Call me Christian, but don't insinuate that I have an intellectual deficit because I expect scientific evidence to prove a theory, not the reverse.

GREGORY STEELMAN

Chichester