I find Steven Foong's rebuttal to SK Wong's letter - Who created the Creator then - to be flawed.

Firstly, he misrepresented Wong's rebuttal to his notion that the irreducible complexity in a certain organism infers the existence of an intelligent designer. In his letter, Wong had argued specifically against irreducible complexity by pointing out that it then follows that a designer of an irreducibly complex organism must also be irreducibly complex.

By the same argument, there must also exist a more complex designer for each successive designer. This, applied ad infinitum, is known as infinite regression; and it contradicts the monotheistic notion of an immediate and supreme creator.

Wong did not, as Foong had represented, improve the odds to account for these complexities by suggesting the existence of infinite universes.

Wong did propose that there could be innumerable universes similar to a life-sustaining one like ours as a counter argument to an intelligent designer's finely-tuned universe argument. The finely -tuned universe argument submits that the probability of our universe evolving naturally into its life supporting state is infinitesimal (hence inducting the notion of a designer).

Foong argues that Wong's proposal arbitrarily introduces an infinite range of possibilities, thus inviting comparison to the likelihood of Shakespeare being a monkey and Kasparov being beaten by random chess moves.

I find this comparison to be trite. It's an observed fact that Shakespeare was not a monkey. Any neutral observer, having observed the Kramnik-Kasparov chess game, can appreciate the causal relationship between Kramnik's intent and his chess moves.

On the other hand, we do not know many universes exist, and how big each universe is. However, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle's calculations suggests that there is a 90 percent chance for universes similar to ours to emerge out of the Big Bang.

Furthermore, just as Martin Novak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, argues: "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation'. We cannot calculate the probability of life's existence on earth because we do not know of all the parameters that factor into the calculation.

Foong further argues, 'Being able to reliably detect design is science'. Yet he does not furnish us with the irrefutable criteria that can be met by observable traits in an organism that suggests design versus natural evolution.

Absence of this, his second statement: 'The only plausible way to render the current method to detect design useless is to prove that the methods themselves are flawed which, of course, will be replaced by a strengthened method' is altogether premature.

Lastly, Foong argues that: 'The only bona fide way to throw intelligent design into ultimate oblivion is to prove that there is no scientific way to detect design at all. Until that happens, intelligent design remains scientific.'

We can break down the preceding statement into the following logical constructs:

Premise: There is no proof that X does not exist.

Conclusion: X must exist.

Any student who has taken a class in discrete mathematics would immediately recognise that as an anachronistic fallacy. By the same reasoning, and assuming intelligent design to be true, then it follows that the supreme creator must be the flying spaghetti monster (FSM), since there is no proof that the FSM is not the supreme creator. Talk about infinite probabilities!

Intelligent design (ID) has not fulfilled the burden of proof to be recognised as a scientific theory. ID proponents like to parade the occasional scientist to lend legitimacy to their cause. In comparison, the tongue-in-cheek Project Steve has over 630 signatories made up solely of prominent scientists with the first name Steve that subscribe to the theory of evolution as a well- founded scientific theory.

Scientific discoveries, like a recent one coming out of the mapping of the chimpanzee's genome, continue to strengthen the case for natural evolution. On the other hand, the intelligent design movement is fueled not by scientific discoveries, but by conservative religious philosophies.

The forefront of this movement, the Discovery Institute, is founded by Bruce Chapman, a conservative Republican and a veteran of the Reagan administration. ID is just one of the fronts, along with the rejection of global warming, in the emerging anti-intellectual, anti-science assault on mainstream American social and political consciousness brought about by neo-conservative Christians that propelled George Bush to the American presidency.

I think while we can elect to let faith guide us in the metaphysical realm, we should let science deal with our physical one.