This letter is concerning Ruth Spangler’s April 18 Daily article, “Evolution, creation cause controversy among scientists.”

Contrary to widespread faculty opinion, science is quite capable of dealing with mistaken and vacuous claims, even when they are couched in supernaturalism – God-based or otherwise.

It does so by simply denying serious consideration to the advocates of such ideas as soon as their falsity or utter worthlessness is amply demonstrated.

This is precisely why science denies serious consideration to creationism, to perpetual motion, to vitalism and to countless other falsified and worthless ideas.

Nothing testifies to the pathetic state of science education at Iowa State more than the indirect quote attributed to faculty member John Pleasants.

According to the article, “In this year’s survey, he said, 52 percent of the students, who are mainly life science majors, said creationism should be taught in schools along with evolution.”

One wonders, do students in engineering feel as kindly toward perpetual motion as Pleasants’ students do toward creationism?

And should they consider perpetual motion any less impossible because so many believe that “with God, all things are possible”?

John Patterson

Emeritus professor

Materials science and engineering