ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Richard S. Greeley invokes a common fallacy in his argument against intelligent design or creation; namely, that they put an end to investigation (C&EN, Sept. 28, 2009, page 4). History could not disagree more.
Until the past century, the majority of scientists ardently believed in a designer and found their curiosity continually stimulated to understand the genius behind the design. I daresay many of us still approach our science with this perspective and find it immensely motivating and satisfying.
One who believes in a creator accepts and assumes that successful living organisms are amazingly complex and well suited for their environment. We seek to understand how we are made, why it works, and what we can do to fix it. When it comes to dealing with disease (my particular business), these questions are interesting and relevant. Determining what random sequence of events may have led to the current state has done little to inform that quest. In fact, after 30 years, I am still waiting.
Lane Sattler
Warminster, Pa.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on X