Re: Religious right’s rejection of science is baffling (Opinion, March 30)
Dr. Suzuki mentions a law in Tennessee allowing teachers to critically examine the theory of evolution. This he considers “anti-science.” I suppose I am a member of the religious right, since I have examined the theory of evolution and rejected it. But I am not anti-science. In fact, I looked to science when examining the question.
Many people accept the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation of the origin of life and species. But by definition, science is the study of that which can be demonstrated by experiment – that which is measurable, observable, provable, repeatable.
There can, therefore, be no scientific statement concerning origins. Origins happen once only. The question of origins is necessarily outside science and gets into the realm of – dare I say it – religion, or faith.
Of course there is a place for science, for both evolutionists and creationists. But science cannot speak to origins. At best it produces evidences or counter-evidences.
To believe that life originated by time and chance is a matter of faith, not science. And to believe that fish turned into birds and monkeys and men, despite the lack of evidence, takes faith. Others put faith in an intelligent creator who designed and sustains life and made each species in its own kind.
The bible says “through faith we understand that the world was ordained by the word of God, and that things which are seen were made of things which are not seen.” It is a question of faith.
If what I say is true, then evolutionary theory should not be touted as science. Furthermore, people who reject it are not rejecting science. Let’s not condemn creationists as “irrational” or “anti-science.” The Tennessee schoolchildren are fortunate to be able to study evidence advanced by both sides.
Ruth Magnusson
Victoria