Room for religion and science

In answer to Mr. Clites’ question concerning the evolution of the eye ["An eye on evolution,"  Jan. 16], there are well-documented, carefully-researched answers. First, the eye evolved independently in many different species. As Mr. Clites mentions, the eyes of a fly are very different than the eyes of mammals.

What good is part of an eye? Imagine two worms, crawling along the ground. If one of them has photoreceptive skin cells on its back, it might sense the shadow of a bird, diving in for the kill, and take evasive action. The ability to sense the difference between light and dark has powerful survival implications.

The larger question here is whether it is necessary to reject evolution if one is to be religious. It is most certainly not. Half of the Christians in the United States accept evolution as the best explanation of how we came to be as we are today.

Does this mean that God didn’t create the universe; that He didn’t know how we would turn out? No. Francis Collins, who was the head of the Human Genome Project, one of the most outstanding scientific achievements of the 20th century, has recently written a good book on this subject.

In "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," Collins explains how DNA offers the strongest evidence for evolution, but also that science is not a threat to religion. Dr. Collins, an evangelical Christian, explains that there is room in the world for both science and religion, an idea that was shared by another great evolutionary scientist, Stephen Jay Gould.

John Drake
Bristol, Tenn.