Design for Living

I enjoyed "Unintelligent Design" [March], but I no more agree with its hypothesis—the idea that viruses may have been the precursors of all life on Earth—than that of the proponents of intelligent design. Both theories are trapped in the concept of a single beginning of life or pseudolife (viruses) on this planet. These linear ideas confine life to a simplicity that we should not accept. It is not hard to fathom that cellular creatures and viruses developed from different origins, both unique, and that through time they encountered each other and grew to share characteristics such as RNA and DNA. But before we conclude that viruses are the origin of life, let's wait until the science "facts" are not stranger than our science fiction. 

Brian Moore Crosby, Texas

The idea of a virus being the first life-form makes perfect sense. There is a theory that life began in the protective pores of lava rock at the mid-ocean ridges where thermal vents give off heat and life-sustaining chemicals. Primitive RNA-type material similar to the viroids, or subviral forms, mentioned in the article might have accumulated in the rock's pores near thermal vents and injected their viroidlike RNA into the pores, similar to the way a modern virus injects its genetic material into a living cell. Interestingly, this theory might still be tested: It is possible that viroidlike forms may still inhabit these lava rocks, having survived the periodic mass extinctions that have occurred on Earth's surface.

Larry E. Swacina Rockton, Illinois

The discovery of the giant Mimivirus obviously raises the possibility of viruses preceding the occurrence of eukaryotes and bacteria on Earth. It will be interesting to see if scientists can identify such viruses in ancient rocks, as they have single-celled primitive life-forms. However, we're still a long way from establishing with reasonable certainty that we are all basically descended from viruses. Outside of the obvious religious implications of intelligent design, its proponents' claims poke some serious holes in Darwinism. The notion that biochemical compounds or microorganisms came to Earth from elsewhere in the universe in the form of a "viral shard," as suggested in the article, will not let us off the hook in trying to explain the naturalistic origins of life, since this merely removes the problem to a different location. Nor can we hide behind the fact that most scientists in the world subscribe to Darwinism. In science, numbers do not necessarily make right. In the days of Galileo, almost everybody believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. Until Einstein, all scientists believed that time and space were immutable and universal. So, rather than trying to squelch the intelligent design crew because of their religious bias, it would be intellectually healthier to investigate their claims head-on and let science win, wherever it may lead us. 

Alan Bertaux Bethany Beach, Delaware

I was astonished at the number of times intelligent design was mentioned in the March issue. Can we put things into a better perspective here? Darwin's theory of evolution is neither stronger nor weaker because of the 2005 court decision in Dover, Pennsylvania. Why? Because the court case wasn't about science at all. It was about politics and a religious minority wanting to implement a change in a high school curriculum. There are many venues appropriate for a discussion of intelligent design, but Discover is not one of them.

David Ewing Phoenixville, Pennsylvania

Errata

The objects in the photograph accompanying "Relics of the Very First War" [R&D, March] were misidentified in our caption as "clay sling bullets from 3500 B.C." Far from being relics of war, the artifacts in the photograph are actually three different views of a single stamp seal in the shape of a duck, carved from bone, from 3500 B.C. We failed to give proper credit for the crochet model pictured on the Contents page of the March issue. The model was made by Margaret Wertheim and comes from the collection of The Institute For Figuring. Readers can learn more about THEIFF, hyperbolic geometry, and crochet models at the Institute's Web site: www.theiff.org.