Ruth Spangler’s April 19 article “Evolution, creation cause controversy among scientists” had a dangerously misleading headline.

There is no serious controversy among reputable scientists about this issue.

Creationism is not even on the same playing field with the science of evolution, as Warren Dolphin clearly points out in the article.

There is no fruitful biological research conducted anywhere from a creationist point of view.

That non-scientists reject science on the basis of superstitious feelings is sad, of course, but nothing new.

At the end of the article, it is observed that people pursue religion because this relationship with God gives them a good feeling.

No doubt this is true.

People need to get high on something.

Just seems a little presumptuous to assume that a source of personal high must be the governing principle of the universe.

An immediate practical problem comes to mind: Since religions exist in so many forms, how do you pick the correct one to substitute for science?

Timo Seppalainen

Associate professor

Mathematics