As a science teacher, I felt it necessary to invoke truth in a newspaper with the status of The Lowell. First, let us start with the understanding that science is a philosophy based primarily on deductive reasoning, ergo, that one makes determinations by studying the specifics of the natural world and then generalizes a pattern that explains the specifics.

This is a process known to most science students as the collection of data and the formulation of a theory. A scientific theory is then published and discussed by peers, after a time and much discussion a theory becomes accepted, this is called consensus science. All theories are arrived at by consensus as the most plausible explanation of the available data (evidence).

The theory of evolution is a theory that is accepted around the world, by all natural scientists, and the majority of the educated public.

This theory is the best plausible explanation for millennia of evidence and centuries of scientists' work that has produced a tremendous body of data. The theory states among other things that species change in response to pressures in their environment and the overwhelming need to reproduce and have their offspring survive.

This theory explains the diversity evident on the planet, as well as much extinction religion can be characterized as primarily inductive in that a worldview is taught to the faithful, who then apply these morals and world view to their specific relationships.

In fact, one of the hallmarks of faith is that the faithful is not to request evidence of the higher being this is how we show faith.

The letter writer made many irrelevant claims about science and specifically biology. One can only assume he thought he was building a case to teach so-called "Intelligent Design" in a classroom. He then insisted that evidence for I.D. be presented along with evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for I.D. because there is no evidence for a higher being. Evidence is not required in faith.

One could argue that faith has no place in a science classroom because science insists on data. One could also argue that science has no place in a house of worship because faith rejects data.

We have embraced dangerous fallacy in recent years, one fostered by many media outlets, that there are somehow two sides to every story. We call these polarized panels fair and balanced. But science is based on facts and data, which really cannot be argued.

You may find someone to argue whether evolution proceeds through punctuated equilibrium or gradual speciation, ergo the theory which best explains the data, but scientists do not argue whether evolution happened. Let us be rational in our debate.

—Katharine Melvin Science Teacher