I have received many letters endorsing a very good anti-evolutionary book which goes into the structure of the eye in detail. The author points out that the eye is so complex and its functions so interrelated that it cannot be explained by the accidents of evolution.

He makes an excellent point. I was impressed when I read that point made by the anti-evolutionary gentleman in 1999. I was impressed by another gentleman who made the exact same point a hundred and forty years earlier. The latter man who said the eye simply could not be explained away by evolutionary accident was named Charles Darwin, and he said it in a book called "The Origin of Species."

Charles Darwin is one of my least favorite people. He was happy to see American soldiers being killed in the Civil War, and he said that if one white man had to die for every slave, that was only fair. As a Southerner, I despise the nasty . . well anyway back to the subject.

On the other hand, about the funniest argument against evolution I ever heard was the idea that the Bible says that human life is a Just-So Story. Human beings are Proud and therefore cannot be descended from a common ancestor with the ape.

I often wonder if I am reading the same Bible people keep quoting at me. The idea that man is somehow a proud being isn't in my Bible at all. He's dust, which is considerably below monkeys on the evolutionary scale.

If you are hung up on the glory of the six day creation you might want to pay a little attention to what happened AFTER that.

Evolution has holes in it, big, ugly holes. But even most creationists do not deny there is a lot of evolution. You can explain most obvious characteristics of most animals only by using the logic of evolution.

Since that is the case, that's what I do. For me, Charles Darwin is not Christ, but he is also not anti-Christ. To the extent his stuff is useful, I use it.