The problem with Steven Newton's article concerning science being under attack is that it is not science itself that is under attack, but the presuppositions with which many scientists interpret their observations ("Science denial is on the rise," Thursday).
Much of the establishment in science disallows any kind of dissent or other views to be aired because the scientists are hemmed in by a philosophical and ideological viewpoint that doesn't allow for any scientific evidence that doesn't conform to their preconceived ideas. Highly qualified scientists are sidelined if they advocate any view that does not conform to the status quo. Those who believe God created the world (whether over a very long period or six days) are "unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution" because they point to a different conclusion. The clear leap of faith one has to take with believing in macroevolution, with the lack of transitional forms, the lack of any evidence for life evolving from inanimate matter, and the clear evidence for Intelligent Design in all the intricate details of creation leaves the majority of people who believe in God unconvinced of evolution.