Editor:

Alex Herskowitz wrote a very thoughtful letter to the Wildcat ("No truth in equating science and religion," Feb. 14). He was responding to an article by Jessie Fillerup; in the article, she stated that science and religion are both subjective and untrustworthy.

Herskowitz stated true science is based on the experimental method whereas religion is subjective and not testable. He made the following statements, "science and religion postulate answers to similar questions," and "science is a superior alternative to religion in the quest for truth."

I disagree with the above quotes. The relative merit of science and religion depends on the question that is posed. Science answers questions about the earth and universe. For example, the hypothesis, water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, is confirmed by science. However, religion answers other questions. Religion helps people formulate a world view. When scientists formulate a world view based on their interpretation of data, then science becomes a religion.

There is a German word in the English dictionary - Weltanschauung, that comes close to my understanding of the term, world view. A world view is made up of the basic presuppositions that each of us hold about: 1. What is ultimate reality? 2. The nature and purpose of humankind? 3. What happens to man at death? 4. What is man's basis for his ethics? 5. What is the nature of human history?

These are in the main presuppositions because they can- not be empirically verified by science. There are perhaps four major "world views" accepted in the world today, most of them mutually exclusive. Atheism or naturalism, pantheism, monotheism and agnosticism.

A naturalist believes that there is nothing beyond the physical universe. He/she, therefore, must leave God out of any explanation of evolutionary data.

One of the first things that engineers are taught is that the validity of results is based on the validity and number of assumptions. Sometimes results do not reflect reality as much as they reflect the assumptions used to interpret the data. For example, a naturalistic scientist may interpret gaps in evolutionary data with his assumption that God is not a possibility.

As for me, I think there is truth beyond the test tube. God communicated with man in the Bible. Archaeology supports many of the texts in the Bible. Time magazine, not exactly a Christian fundamentalist magazine, recently described several archeological discoveries that confirm Biblical claims.

Peter Waller
agricultural and biosystems engineering assistant professor