In responding to my Oct. 23 letter titled “It’s hard to reject intelligent design,” one of the online commenters said:

“If we’re to use Behe’s Rube Goldberg metaphor, a cell is wildly more complex than it would need to be to serve its function in the body.”

That statement may have had more credibility in the 1990s; but as my Nov. 8 issue of “Science” points out: “… in the last 10 years they have discovered that the vast majority of trait–associated DNA variations occur in regions of the genome that were once labeled as ‘junk DNA.’ These regions control where, when and to what extent genes are used to make functional RNA and proteins.”

The Nov. 1 issue “Our Fallen Genomes” article would seem to indicate that our genome was designed perfectly, but is now in a state of reverse evolution.

Is it any wonder that a survey of 926 public high school biology instructors reveals a pervasive reluctance of teachers to explain evolutionary biology.

Thirteen percent of the teachers explicitly advocated creationism or intelligent design.

Twenty-eight percent consistently teach evolution.

The remaining percentage are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor of intelligent design or creation. (Jan. 28, 2011, issue of “Science,”  “Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom”)

Believing that the genome self-assembled itself by random mixing of molecules in some big cosmic “bingo tumbler” without the aid of intellectual input, requires a huge act of faith.

Phil Drietz

Delhi, Minn.