Sir: I read Paul Johnson's admirably simple explanation of the origins of the universe (And another thing, 13 December) on the 6.46 Chiltern Railways train from Marylebone to Saunderton. His argument, that the creation of the universe by a single god is simpler than any other explanation and hence true, opened my eyes to a deeper truth about the world around me. Simplicity can sometimes be stunning.

I realised that I had been looking at the universe in the wrong way. Take that train for example. I have little understanding of the way in which it worked. I have heard terms such as rolling stock and the like, but I am a simple man and they baffle me.

I have, as a result of this commute, become familiar with the works of another of our philosophical authors, J.K. Rowling, from the north of Britain. She offers simple explanations for many of the things that I find so hard to understand in this modern world: the ability to fly and to travel and communicate over long distances.

Paul Johnson's logic is inexorable. These things work by operation of magic. Nothing more is needed, other than maybe a brain.

Nicholas Grandage Via email

Sir: In supporting the view that God is the simplest explanation of the universe, Paul Johnson confuses, wilfully or otherwise, belief (this view) with hypothesis. At one time it was believed that the sun orbited the earth, until Galileo, from astronomical observations, proved otherwise, the efforts of the Inquisition notwithstanding.

By regarding the constant revision of scientific hypotheses -- the willingness to be proved wrong -- as a weakness rather than a great strength, Johnson displays a total lack of understanding of the scientific method. Since he professes to be a disciple of Karl Popper, I would be interested to know what 'easily verifiable' (or, more importantly, falsifiable) predictions he would make to test his creationist views.

Mike Venis Faversham, Kent