In response to Robert Nazarete's May 17 letter ("Stein film can't disprove evolution") and to John Craig's May 20 rebuttal ("Evolution is a religion, not science"), I must commend Mr. Craig in clarifying what the scope of the movie was really about: the true lack of intellectual and scientific neutrality that is otherwise claimed by proponents of Darwinian naturalism. Please note the word "evolution" is not used here. This word carries different meanings to different people, and thus renders arguments against it moot.

To clarify, proponents of Darwinian naturalism use examples of adaptation and minor changes to justify the extrapolations that major changes (i.e., entire new biological families) come about, while detractors of Darwinian naturalism argue that major changes have never been scientifically observed, recorded or induced. By presenting actual biological events in such a positive light, proponents mask the real debate (while claiming scientific and philosophical neutrality), and they can get away with it because of use of the one word: evolution.

I will encourage the debate's focus on the more concise term "Darwinian naturalism." Only then will the irreligious bias and lack of neutrality from proponents become evident. Only then can the argument be successfully made that evolution is a religion, not science.

Robert Williams, Evans