This is in response to a letter published June 28.

Questioning evolution is not popular. As an evolutionist, I remember strong feelings of intellectual ridicule and anger toward doubters. The decision to publically abandon it was difficult as I knew questions of motive would ensue, but indifferently dismissing overwhelmingly long odds as irrelevant requires a motive, too.

When I championed naturalism, I refused to consider other viewpoints. No matter how logical an opposing argument was, it was wrong – discussion over. That was protective thinking.

I stand by the numbers I previously presented (column, June 1). They say what they say and are not irrelevant; they are legitimate. The implications of them are left to us. They become irrelevant if that’s the viewpoint. I will answer any questions about how I got them, from parameters of data input to methodology.

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, a group of MD’s from all disciplines whose membership includes an award-winning brain surgeon, published a statement expressing skepticism that random mutations and natural selection can account for the origination and complexity of life. Likewise did a group of Ph.D. research scientists and mathematicians that include staff members from the National Academy of Sciences, the Smithsonian, Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Princeton, MIT, Stanford and highly regarded universities and research institutions worldwide.

Their statement concludes, “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Both of these groups are growing.

I see no intellectual crime in wanting to know their objections and opinions.

Jim Rose, Bethel