Creationism, Evolution Have Place in Science

I see where Dianne Klein is once again treating us to the John Peloza vs. evolution story (“Teaching Kids--Religiously,” Sept. 3).

Klein appears to have mellowed slightly from her previous article of May 19, where she rather viciously attacked teacher Peloza with sarcasm and ridicule.

However, it appears that there’s still some misunderstanding concerning Peloza’s views on evolution. Klein says, “Peloza’s view (is) that fossil remains prove that species do not change.”

Peloza agrees that over a period of time there are changes within a species--commonly referred to as microevolution. This view is not disputed by most modern biologists.

However, Peloza, disagrees that simple life forms “evolved” into complex ones--macroevolution. This is a debatable point, accepted by some scientists and not accepted by others. Peloza refuses to teach this theory as an absolute fact, a position that appears to be acceptable scientific methodology.

Klein does agree that discussions about religious beliefs should be allowed in public schools--in history or comparative religions classes. That’s an excellent idea, but to rule out “creationism” from the science class and allow “evolution” is implying that evolution is true and creationism untrue. Since both are merely theories and it takes a “leap of faith” to accept either, they both have a legitimate claim on reality in a science class as well.

IRVING E. FRIEDMAN,

Laguna Niguel