Dear Editors: Last week's response by Martin Wagner ["Postmarks," Aug. 15] was a clear demonstration of the unusual divisiveness of the Darwinian camp. I am not a right-wing conservative (I don't attend church, and I've never voted Republican) but a person who is passionate about keeping the door open for debate on a highly debatable subject. Of course, if Mr. Wagner were to admit this, then he would also have to admit that the ad hominem that consumes most of his objection is vacuous. In a brief respite from the character assault, Mr. Wagner carries on the same Darwinist misunderstanding of I.D. that I had mentioned previously. Let me say it once again: I.D. is a theory of evolution, not of creation, and as such it needs not make an ontological account of existence but an epistemological account of evolution. Neither does it stand in contradistinction to everything Darwinism has uncovered. Like other theories of evolution, it builds on Darwinism's finds and seeks to explain the crippling weaknesses of the theory through the best scientific evidence. Mr. Wagner seems not to understand that Darwinistic evolution is a grossly incomplete theory. It rests on such an absurd mathematical improbability that the process can only be ascribed to Intelligent Design. We have tested this hypothesis with computer programs. Simply put, the best scientific evidence supports ID. That Darwinism is insufficient led one famous Darwinist, Stephen Jay Gould, to branch away from it via Process Structuralism. That Mr. Wagner thought Process Structuralism was a form of ID theory illustrates his lack of knowledge of the subject, or perhaps Gould, an atheist, was simply confused about his own theory? To supplement Wagner's Web site offering, I'd like to recommend www.designinference.com. You'll find that both Dembski and Behe continue to successfully uphold their theories against often ridiculous rebuttals.