COMMENTARY
Some readers seemed distressed by my column on the well-established negative correlation between scientific education and belief in God, "Evolutionary theory, science needed to vaccinate irrational beliefs" (SN 2/16).
Regrettably, fact checking was not their forte.
In "Bice misinterprets studies in his column" (SN 3/17), Charlie Mack claimed that I mischaracterized a study by Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund when I wrote "Natural science faculty were less likely to believe in God than social scientists." Although this was a small point in my column, Mack argued that professors weren't asked direct questions on belief in God, but two questions regarding levels of "truth" in religions.
However, Rice University's Office of News and Media Relations described the study as having 36 questions on religious beliefs and spiritual practices and, "Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists surveyed said they did not believe in God, but only 31 percent of the social scientists gave that response."
I also contacted Ecklund by phone; she kindly confirmed that the study did, indeed, have direct questions on belief in God.
Rudy Bernard's recent column, "Scientists don't need to dismiss religion to be credible, accurate" (SN 3/14), also deserves a response.
Bernard wrote, "Even the group with the highest level of unbelief (biologists) still has a majority with belief."
That's completely false.
A majority of scientists surveyed were either atheist or agnostic.
