I wish to respond to a recent Fast Focus submission by John Faulkner of Richland, in which he divided science into two categories based on whether it is consistent with the Bible ("true science") or not ("junk science"). His yardstick for judging the worth of scientific information is very different from the one that scientists use.
Scientists evaluate a scientific study based on how it was conducted, not on how well it fits with what they think they know. If the methods used to collect and interpret the data follow sound scientific guidelines, then it is "good" science. These guidelines include rejecting ideas that lack support (no matter how much you like those ideas) and allowing other researchers the opportunity to critically evaluate research methods and results.
To a scientist, "junk science" is science done poorly, not science that makes us re-evaluate how the natural world works.
LORI W. NELSON, Richland