Bryan seemed to be confusing the theory of evolution with Social Darwinism. Given the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 30s, he appeared to have good instincts - albeit mistaken ones. Darwin's theory of evolution is now regarded by reputable scientists as the theory that best explains the origins of life (not human society) despite the gaps in our understanding and flaws in the theory (show me a perfect theory of the origins of life and I'll show you a gay-friendly Al-Qaeda member). Ian Plimer in his book Telling Lies for God stresses that scientific debates on evolution centre on how evolution has developed rather than questioning evolution per se.

Interesting how religious fundamentalists want equal time for "religious" theories such as creationism (or "creation science" as its hilariously called sometimes) in the teaching of biology. What about equal time for voodoo in medical science classes? Or perhaps mesmerism in neurology classes. Or how about alternative views to the theory of gravity? And where would witchcraft be taught? Maybe JK Rowling could advise.

President George Bush may have said something interesting in his remarks about “intelligent design”, and possibly Peter Costello decided to copy him.

But whether it is “creationism”, or “evolution”, or “intelligent design”, these theories or philosophies have one thing in common. All seek to continue, expand or extend life.

I wonder why the interest in Mars recently. There have been quite a few probes sent to Mars in recent years, with talk about manned missions. But of course Mars is some distance away, and a maned base on mars would have to become self-sustaining. Eventually a colony would have to be developed, with an atmosphere, water, flora and fauna. Why not colonize the whole planet, through melting the ice caps, using fungus and algae to produce an atmosphere, then perhaps a little seeding.

Mars could become a home away from home, and most of the technology for this colonization could be available already, just the capital and the time is necessary.

So maybe God is someone who had the time and capital, and happened to notice the planet we call Earth.

I told my children that Adam and Eve were Hominids who had a daughter called Lucy who was born in Africa. While I had their attention (one was busy playing a play station game, the other reading the latest Harry Potter sequel) I also told them that Adam, Eve and little Lucy spent their Christmas playing with reindeers at the South Pole and in the evening they all gathered at Santa's house where they had Xmas dinner with dwarfs, a big bad wolf (on his best behaviour) and three nervous little pigs.

When presents were exchanged, Karaoke sung and goodbyes said, three wise men arrive (Bob Geldorf, Kofi Annan and Ralph Nader) and in a Black Hawke helicopter to take them back to Africa.

The point of this story is that stories do matter but its how and why you tell them that is much more important.

God bless.

It is important to realise that religion is an inescapable concept. It is never a question of whether one is religious or not but rather of what religion it is to which one subscribes. While many people are self-consciously religious (usually those whose religion is revealed) there are many who are not (usually humanists, who consider man to be the measure of all things). But everyone, regardless of whether he realises it, has a framework of basic assumptions regarding metaphysics, epistemology and ethics that he holds on faith. Everybody's religious; and everybody's religion is quite naturally based on faith.

The scientist, for example, is a man of faith. In order to engage in the scientific endeavour, he must take a huge leap of faith. He must presuppose the uniformity of nature. He cannot prove the uniformity of nature, only assume it, have faith in it. Only then can he engage in the scientific enterprise of employing the principle of induction and making generalisations from particulars. He is a man of faith; he has to be. There is no other choice. While many scientists may today talk the talk of materialism concerning their views of the universe, they evidently walk the faith-based walk of believing in a universe that is nevertheless ordered and unified. Only in such a universe that operates according to permanent, immutable laws that are predictable can science be possible.

As to Darwin's theory of evolution, first propounded in his book, "Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", here's a question to which I've never found an answer: What purpose or function did partially developed sexual organs serve?

Not necessarily, Brazuca, not necessarily.

"But everyone, regardless of whether he realises it, has a framework of basic assumptions regarding metaphysics, epistemology and ethics that he holds on faith. Everybody's religious"

You have taken three perfectly human characteristics - the puzzlement over who and why we are, a curiosity about what we can actually hold to be "true", and a desire to differentiate between right and wrong - and given them a single label, religion. But surely religion requires the belief in a supernatural power? Where's the connection?

Your next leap of logic, that "having faith" is equivalent to "having religion" is also untenable. I'm sure it looked reasonable when you wrote it down, but you make far too many questionable assumptions along the way.

Science is about making today's best guess, from the information available. Where the search area is small - say, how a flower grows - we can expect some pretty solid results. Where the search area is large - say, the origin of the universe - we have become accustomed to a continuous string (sorry!) of theories, some supplanting those that went before, some sitting alongside other theories and vying for attention.

What you call the "faith" of a scientist is in fact no more or less than an individual reliance upon previous research, which is in turn no more than a value judgement based upon a weight of evidence and the credibility of that evidence. Any scientist who believes they hold the single answer to anything is kidding themself.

The absolutely most exciting aspect of life is not that we know stuff, but that we know so little. My motto - if I were to have anything quite so crass - would be "There are more questions than answers. Ain't that just the best!"

Well perhaps this is just an identity, epistemological, ontological crisis in the West?