Editor:

Fillerup's Feb. 5 column asserts that "... science is as much a religion as Christianity" and "Truth in science is as subjective as truth in literature, as enigmatic as an optical illusion, as elusive as music, as sketchy and nebulous as truth in religion" promotes a popular misconception. It belies a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of scientific principles and discovery.

It is true both science and religion postulate answers to similar questions, but they approach those questions in fundamentally different ways. Religion begins with a conclusion and tries to find support for it. Science proceeds from posing questions to creating hypotheses which must be testable. Then experiments are performed and if none of these experiments disprove the hypothesis, it is tentatively accepted. Experiments must produce reproducible results. If other scientists are not able to reproduce the experimental results or if they are found to be in error, the conclusions are rejected.

It is the testability of ideas over many years by many scientists that lends science its credulity. This is not to say that all scientists are honest, but rather that erroneous results will eventually be ferreted out due to the rigorous process of science know as the scientific method. With religion the assumption is that the theory (Bible) is right and cannot be proven wrong. Thus evidence that points to the contrary is rejected. Thus science is a superior alternative to religion in the quest for truth. For questions not within the domain of science, however, can co-exist with science and serve a purposeful function.

Alex Herskowitz
mollecular and cellular biology sophomore