Advanced opinions
Sir: I never dreamed that the Spectator would publish an article with so many errors as you did with Brian Inglis's out- burst (Tiltdown bird', 13 September) against the fossil Archaeopteryx and against the theory of evolution in general.
No convincing evidence has ever been produced to show that this part-bird part- reptile fossil is a 'fake'. Indeed, when Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wick- ramasinghe made this allegation last year, a British Museum spokesman said: 'We consider their theory to be absolute rub- bish which, coming from us, is very strong language indeed.' Few responsible scien- tists would dissent from that opinion.
Mr Inglis seems to have little under- standing of biology, and the two books he quotes from, by Michael Denton and Francis Hitching, are riddled with errors. His own principal mistake is to assume that a partly evolved organ, half a wing, 'could have offered an animal no advantage'. Could he then explain to us why the animal world is full of creatures with only partly formed eyes and wings? I would be happy to supply him with examples.
Could your scientific articles not be written by someone with opinions more advanced than those expressed by Bishop Wilberforce in 1860?
Adrian Berry
Science Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, 135 Fleet Street, London EC4
Previous page
