I think apples are great. Why is it that they fit into my hand so easily? I don't even need to climb a tree to get one as they eventually fall to the ground (by the way I work in the building trade and I also think trees are great, timber is just sooo useful). Take a biro - I know some guy somewhere designed it and then made it and it works perfectly. I just can't help thinking that with an open mind I would be foolish not to think that a lot of nature's produce is far too perfectly designed to be a coincidence -- am I being naive?

The Dover trial exposed Intelligent Design "theory" as a front for Creationism. But the Argument from Design has been around since Descartes at least. Do philosophers consider the latter also a theory worth taking seriously or would they dismiss it like the Dover judge did ID? (I wouldn't say Descartes was fronting it for Catholicism because it was the only religion he knew.) It was an odd trial: the only witnesses called were scientists and all the ID scientists were also Christians. What do you think about this? Why were no philosophers called on to testify when they are so well-acquainted with such arguments?

Human beings have evolved similar physical attributes over time. Though there is some genetic variation among individuals, we share many traits. But isn't it also possible that, as a result of our common evolutionary heritage, we share similar emotional and moral traits as well? If we all have basically similar emotional machinery, why couldn't we appeal to the general constellation of desires that most of us share, and use them to construct a universal ethics? If the good is what makes us happy, and happiness is the fulfillment of various desires, and if humans have similar desires because we share evolved mental traits, then why couldn't an appeal to those traits in the search for moral agreement? Just as medical experts can give general advice about physical health because most humans share similar physical bodies, why can't psychologists and ethicists give general advice about morality based upon our shared mental traits?

When parents take measures to select for beneficial genetic traits in their children (e.g., by selecting MENSA members as sperm donors), who benefits? I take it that the intuition is that the children benefit. There's something weird about this idea, however. It's not as though we are conferring intelligence or good looks on a child who would otherwise be ordinary; rather, we're trying to ensure that the ordinary child never comes into existence in the first place.

These days, you often hear about criminal trials in which genetic predispositions to violence are invoked as factors mitigating moral culpability. Strictly speaking, though, isn't all our behavior -- good and bad -- dictated by an interaction of our genes and environment? If genes direct us in any case and at all times, does it really make sense to cite genetic determination in the instance of bad acts, as if these were exceptional cases?

I read that an artery is a blood vessel that carries blood away from the heart. However, a dead body still has arteries, and they don't carry blood anywhere anymore. Moreover, there may be dead or non functioning arteries within a living body. A friend of mine suggests that an artery is a blood vessel that evolved to carry blood away from the heart, but a creationist wouldn't believe her, and I would prefer a definition of "artery" that could be accepted by anyone. Could you, philosophers, provide such a definition?

What purpose does one have to do anything to assist another human if it does not directly benefit one? Our lives are short (sometimes), why should we even consider doing things which do not directly help ourselves? Why do we feel better about ourselves when we help others? Survival of the fittest says we should abandon everyone else to ensure our own survival and procreation. Why do we and animals alike have the need to ensure the survival of our species instead of ensuring the survival of ourselves or our immediate kin.

What would you need to find (what sort of evidence) in order to disprove the theory of evolution (or at least detract from it)?

I studied languages, not philosophy, the reason being that I was afraid I would have to study intensely old philosophers and this would influence my own thinking. This was very wise, I think, and now, thirty years on, I think I have developed my own view. Now I would like to see if there are others who think along the same lines. What I try to do is view myself and the rest of us the way humans look at other animals and see the similarities. I consider evolution to be the only driving force in life and therefore our self-consciousness and intelligence to be evolutionary assets like the claws of the tiger or the trunk of an elephant. Could you direct me to others who think along the same lines? Yours truly, Martin C.

I would like to know why, after rigorous scientific training in objective observation and reflection, some scientists are very resistant to laying down their preconceptions. One area which springs to mind is the breath-taking complexity of life on earth. This points so clearly to a creator of some kind (hence the ID debate), yet many scientists dismiss this possibility a priori, regarding it as a childish myth. Why this unwillingness to be truly 'scientific' and examine the facts from several possible points of view, rather than one rather dogmatic one?