Letter to the Editor from Decatur, GA

Published: May 26, 2005

To the Editor:

As a Catholic and a microbiologist who finds her conscience increasingly at odds with the conservative tilt of the Catholic Church, I was particularly disheartened by The Georgia Bulletin article entitled “Catholic Scientist Supports Cobb Evolution Stickers” (May 12). When I find myself wondering whether I will ever find my niche within the church, I have always reassured myself that at least Catholics are accepting of the theory of evolution. Maybe not. Aside from his initial statement that “there be conversation, not confrontation about [evolution],” I found little in Dr. McHugh’s comments with which I could agree.

I am not sure to which “people” Dr. McHugh refers when he states that “people tell me ‘you’ve got to believe this’”; the implication is that the people are scientists, more specifically “Darwinists.” But the scientists that I know don’t “believe” in matters of science. They do experiments that test their scientific ideas and write papers that carefully explain their studies, often pointing out limitations of the study so that others can judge for themselves the validity of their work.

Regarding the now famous Cobb County stickers, he stated, “It’s just a sticker that says it’s a theory, and it is a theory.” Indeed, evolution is “just” a theory; gravitational theory and the theory of relativity are also just theories, but only the theory of evolution was disclaimed by Cobb County.

As for Dr. McHugh’s comment that “those who would expel all challenges to the Darwinian narrative from the high school classroom are false in their mission of the teaching of the scientific method,” I think it is Dr. McHugh who has misrepresented the scientific method. The scientific method is based in testable hypotheses that seek to explain natural phenomena, and scientists welcome testable challenges to current theories since this is how a theory is refined and improved. But by definition intelligent design is based on faith and cannot be tested, thus cannot be subjected to the scientific method. Further, Darwinists do not dismiss intelligent design out of hand, as Dr. McHugh purports, but simply insist that theories based on faith are not science. I know many a scientist who would be happy to discuss intelligent design—in religion or philosophy, just not in science class.

For a more balanced view of the evolution debate, I would like to refer Georgia Bulletin readers to the Clergy Letter Project Web site which contains many interesting links:

www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm.

Patti Fields Paulino, Ph.D., Decatur