To the editor:

Mr. Phil Drietz, of Delhi, MN very often writes about scientific issues. He generally gives a vast amount of scientific data to lend credence to his conclusions. His conclusions are not based on the data presented but, rather, are statements of Mr. Drietz’s pre-formed concepts. His letter is a method he uses to support these, generally, unfounded and unscientific concepts.

The question becomes: What is the source of Mr. Drietz’s data? Could this data be found in Mr. Drietz’s religious books? No. First, religious books are not written to deal with scientific questions. Second, most religious books get the science wrong.

The source of Mr. Drietz’s scientific data is science. But science is what Mr. Drietz opposes.

In his letter published in the Oct. 15 Independent, he criticizes the high school science curriculum for stating a possible way for the evolution of complex molecules from simpler molecules. At this point in time, science does not have any definitive answer and research continues. Does he think that science should be mute until final answers are discovered? This is not how science works. Problems and questions are freely publicized so that anyone could solve the problem or answer the question.

Mr. Drietz most likely has his own answer, along the lines of “it was done by the invisible magic guy that lives in the sky.”

Harold Shuckhart

Minneota