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.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American