Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib's letter contains many factual errors. His letter is a series of poorly-understood theories in a clumsy attempt to fit square pegs into round holes, and at times shooting himself in the foot.

First of all, he confuses "quantum tunneling" with "vacuum polarisation". I can assure him they are quite distinct phenomena. Nowhere in my previous letter did I mention quantum tunneling.

Secondly, from where did he get the idea that quantum mechanics was founded on the concept of "quantum events occur in accordance to limited probabilities in limited time intervals?" Could he cite a source? I must have missed the passage when I read the many quantum mechanics textbooks.

Thirdly, the passage I quoted from Paul Davies was a scientific fact. However, the passage Abdul Rahman quoted from Paul Davies was a matter of personal opinion.

Fourth, to the best of my knowledge, neo-Darwinism is a combination of Darwin's original theory of evolution and Mendel's theory of genetics. I could not find the terms "limited inheritance" and "unlimited inheritance" mentioned anywhere (in mainstream scientific discourse) except in his letter.

Perhaps he meant that early biologists were divided on whether traits inherited from parents will blend together or remain distinct. If traits are blended together, they tend to smooth out with differences from one generation to the next small and evolution gradual. However, Mendel's experiments found that peas have either wrinkled or smooth skin, even when they are cross-bred.

Disagreements in scientific communities are commonplace. This should not be viewed as a sign of weakness. In fact, just like natural selection, it provides a mechanism to weed out unviable theories.

When Darwin first proposed his theory of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, he wasn't aware of the existence of genes. Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to explain evolution at the level of genes. Darwin's original idea could be termed macro-evolution, while changes in the gene frequencies from one generation to the next is called micro-evolution. Neo-Darwinism contends that macro-evolution is just a cumulative effect of micro-evolution. Some biologists however think the mechanism for macro-evolution is distinct from micro-evolution.

We now know natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution. Mutation and random genetic drift may be as important. What modern evolutionary biologists argue about is not whether the theory of evolution is correct vis-a-vis creationism, but the exact mechanism and their relative importance in evolution.

Stephen Jay Gould proposed the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium to explain why speciation appears to occur relatively quickly in some instances but gradually or not at all in other periods, not to refute evolution. Abdul Rahman confuses the debate about the detailed mechanisms of evolution with the demise of evolutionary theory. The original neo-Darwinism theory may be outdated but to say the theory of evolution has met its end stretches the credibility of imagination. As Mark Twain put it, "the rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

Fifth, to say that there are no proof of evolution is to be blind to the overwhelming evidence. How about some topical subjects for starters: pesticide-resistance mosquitos and mutation of the H5N1 strain from a bird to human virus? In both cases, micro-evolution is at work.

Sixth, Abdul Rahman has the audacity to quote a Gallup poll as evidence of the shortcomings of evolutionary theory, and from the American population no less. These are the same people who believed Iraq had WMD! Since when is the validity of a theory decided on the basis of popular vote?

Seventh, he quotes from Thomas Kuhn: "To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself." In his attempt to discredit the theory of evolution, what is Abdul Rahman substituting in its place? Creationism? Which part of creationism is scientific?

He is encouraged to comment and critique any scientific theory. That's how science progresses. But please do us the favour of reading up on evolution biology from mainstream scientific journals instead of through the lens of other creationists who tend to muddle, mangle and misrepresent scientific theories.

I write this long reply not because I want to convince Abdul Rahman of the validity of evolution and the mountain of evidence in its favour. It is fruitless to argue with a person who equates science with dogmatic faith. I write this letter for the many readers who are reasonable, open minded and appreciate rationality.