F. Marty Martinez (April 23), Russ Graves and Lynette Turner (April 24) mislead readers with their letters.

They repeat familiar false claims from the creationist camp: that there is genuine scientific controversy about evolution, and that evolution is just a belief and hence on equal footing with any other belief.

No and no, most emphatically.

After 140 years of research, the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fundamental aspect of nature.

Major professional societies of scientists and educators have taken strong stands on behalf of evolution.

The National Academy of Sciences has made a strong statement.

For example, here is the conclusion from a policy statement by the Genetics Society of America: “Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology and anthropology.”

This scientific consensus is so remarkably unified and consistent that it is silly to talk about a scientific controversy.

The controversy is entirely outside of science, in the minds of those whose religious feelings prevent them from accepting the conclusions of science.

Evolution is not something you need to “believe” in.

It is not an article of faith.

It is simply the best scientific explanation for a certain body of facts.

Only a fool disagrees with this, because then you have to claim to understand something better than the world’s scientific community. If scientific evidence against evolution had appeared, evolution would have been discarded.

Instead, the case for evolution has strengthened through the progress of science during the last 100 plus years.

Let’s also be clear about the boundaries of a scientific discussion on evolution: It has nothing to do with whether God exists or whether God created the world.

The issue is strictly about scientific evidence.

So no one need fret that evolution infringes on his personal relationship with God.

Creationists are well-funded and well-organized, and they try to interfere with science education wherever they can.

The teaching of creationism in public schools has been ruled unconstitutional on grounds of separation of church and state.

In response, the creationists have changed their rhetoric.

“Intelligent design” is the latest guise under which they try to slip religion into science curriculums.

But regardless of our various religious backgrounds, I hope we can agree that only scientifically valid material belongs in science classrooms.

Opposing the creationists’ assault on education is an important duty of every intelligent person.

I am especially disappointed that ISU faculty members in biological sciences do not come out with a strong statement in defense of evolution.

I would think that as faculty of a land-grant institution they have a special obligation to educate the citizens and students of Iowa on this matter.

Timo Seppalainen

Associate professor

Mathematics