The anniversary of a great scientist is a cause for celebration but why should it be controversial?

Many people believe in one or other religion, honour supreme beings, carry out rituals and attempt to follow the teachings and lifestyles of holy books. That, for them, is a matter of faith. I know of no scientist who would mock, threaten or abuse religious practitioners for their convictions. Why should believers feel so insecure and endangered by science that they would dispute the evidence of their own eyes, promise hellfire and damnation to those who do not share their opinions and, in rare cases, go to the extreme of threatening scientists with violence?

Science works on facts, demands repetitious tests for proof before theories are accepted and, even then, deep-rooted received ideas can be adjusted or replaced as and when new evidence arises. A good scientist should trust the methodology but be open-minded about the results and conclusions. Both evolution and the theory of gravity were based upon or replaced earlier models. Einstein filled in the gaps not available for observation by Newton and evolution theory is now augmented by Mendel’s information on genetics that had not been known to Darwin. Science, with the exception of geology, is not set in stone.

Religion and science clashing on principles may be a matter of opinion but it is never one of fact. Followers of religions who "deny" Darwin" have a point of view but they have no argument. Mythology, however widely followed, is no match for truth. Millions of believers in creation by a supernatural being (or the creationism-light pseudo-science of intelligent design) cannot, by their very numbers, change truth or show reality to be false. Science is not democratic because most of us are not scientists. That being said, anyone can observe the variations in dog breeding and propose that a husky might best suited to survive Arctic conditions or that a poodle would do poorly at hunting wolves. Religious leaders are in a similar minority to scientists, though lay observation of scriptural lessons are less easily open to repetition. The recent UK poll, in which a third of the population accept the theory of natural selection, merely highlights the apathy or ignorance of the remaining two-thirds.

Not all refutation of holy text currently meets with outraged argument. The long-held idea of a flat earth, widely suggested in those same holy texts that propose spontaneous creation, is now generally discredited. Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian monk whose independent observations identified the mechanics that drove evolution, has never been subject to the same level of disbelief or abuse. It is a mere nine years since the Catholic church apologised for the excommunication (in his and their belief, to damn in hell) of Galileo. His crime was the heresy of observing and stating in public that, contrary to those same creationist texts, the planetary system was heliocentric. Charles Darwin, still subject to dispute by those seeking to deny what is demonstrably true, may still have to wait for his 400th birthday to find full acceptance of his work.