Letters to the Editors, June 2005

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Responses to the February issue raised a question about belief: Are people who trust in fact any less closed-minded than those who favor faith? In "Sticker Shock," Steve Mirsky satirized the Cobb County, Georgia, school board's attempt to place disclaimer stickers in biology textbooks warning students that they contain material on the theory of evolution. George T. Matzko, chairman of the natural science division at Bob Jones University in South Carolina, suggested "a sticker for Scientific American in the same vein as the column: 'Warning, this magazine holds to the theory that all phenomena, including origins, can be explained in terms of natural causes and is therefore atheistic in tone and content.'" But Albert Eatock of Bracebridge, Ontario, pointed to another popular text that may need a disclaimer: "The Bible started as oral history and has been translated and reinterpreted numerous times since its inception. Therefore, it is not factual and should be approached with an open but critical mind." Warning: more disputation and discourse that are highly subjective in tone and content follow.

STICKING IT TO EVOLUTION
Steve Mirsky's column "Sticker Shock" [Anti Gravity] was another attempt to perpetuate the myth that there is a conflict between science and religion.

Because the modern Catholic Church knows its charter is not the physical sciences but rather the salvation of man, it is unfazed by the theory of evolution. Addressing this, Pope John Paul II said, "Truth cannot contradict truth." This comprehension is easily discovered in the catechism and Vatican documents. As a faithful Roman Catholic, I have never been afraid of science. I have, however, seen many who are afraid to explore faith. For Mirsky to treat fundamentally disparate groups as one entity is not, well, very scientific.
Christopher Halpern
Longwood, Fla.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American