Although I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court decision to bar creationism from the scientific curriculum of public schools, I think your editorial (June 21), "Another Bitter Pill," lacked humanistic perspective.
First, by the very definition of the word, evolution does not presume to explain the origin of life. There must be something to evolve--that is, to change or (in value terms) to "develop." Evolution, then, does not exclude the possibility that a force other than and/or "superior to" life as we know it created life in some primitive form and even endowed that life with inherent principles, seemingly "random" even (and the term "random" is also a value term) for its change and so-called "development."
That possibility, viewed in the context of other evidence, may be sufficient to provide the ground for religious faith, which St. Paul called "the evidence of things not seen." It is like a juror's judgment: its validity can't be proved scientifically, yet it has sufficient weight to send a man to prison or to death.
In the face of scientific evidence, a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis is indeed "nonsense," as your editorial says, but we cannot deny the possibility of a creator unless we assert that whatever cannot be proved scientifically to exist does not in fact exist and cannot exist. This is neither scientific nor common sense.