To the editor:

Today’s editorial (Sept. 7) lists some options of beliefs regarding evolution and creation. One can believe in either or perhaps a little of both. You left out the one option that fits the criterion of science the best: believe in neither on the basis of science. Both creation and evolution are great philosophical endeavors. Neither is science.

The amount of time, money and mental resources spent on this subject truly amazes me. The argument is fundamentally about two philosophies. It is most unfortunate that these philosophies are being taught in school as science. Non-physical scientists become uncomfortable when held to the same standard as physical theories, such as those of Newton, Bernoulli or Maxwell. The reason for this precarious state is a lack of testing. The veracity of any scientific theory is judged on the basis of the quantity and quality of testing. Macroevolution cannot be fully tested, thus it isn’t science. Creation, of course, suffers from the same problem.

The Journal-World is right to call for a cease-fire in the creation/evolution debate. You suggest a compromise based on the possibility that both philosophies might be right. I suggest just the opposite. Don’t teach either as science in primary and secondary schools. Teach these theories as possibilities that must be tested. Emphasize the testing over the theory.

David R. Brunfeldt,

Lawrence