Enlarge By Keith Simmons, USA TODAY USA TODAY OPINION USA TODAY OPINION Letters to the editor USA TODAY receives about 300 letters each day. Most arrive via e-mail, but we also receive submissions by postal mail and fax. We publish about 35 letters each week. We often select comments that respond directly to USA TODAY articles or opinion pieces. Letters that are concise and make one or two good points have the best chance of being selected, as do letters that reflect the vibrant debate around the nation on a particular subject. We aim to make the letters platform a place where readers, not just writers representing institutions or interest groups, have their say. How to submit letters Karl Giberson argues that "there is something profoundly un-American about demanding that people give up cherished ... beliefs just because they don't comport with science." Not true. In the world of public intellectual debate, it's quite American to argue for one's point of view ("Atheists, play well with others," On Religion, The Forum, Monday). READ OPINION: Atheists, play well with others In past debates over slavery, for example, it was important to make the scientific claim that blacks are not biologically inferior to whites. Slavery advocates had to be confronted with the fact that their views didn't "comport with science." Giberson next asks, "What sort of atheist complains that a fellow citizen doing world-class science must abandon his or her religion to be a good scientist?" Answer: the sort that has a point of view that they think is worth arguing for. Finally, he asserts that "the New Atheists need to learn how to play in the sandbox." But there are many sandboxes. In the sandbox of public intellectual debate, men such as philosopher and atheist Daniel Dennett are playing very much by the rules; rules that allow all of us to be "loud, self-promoting and mean-spirited" in advocating points of view that we take to be true and beneficial antidotes to what we see as intellectual dishonesty. We can agree with Giberson that people have "the right to be wrong" without agreeing with him that the intellectual freedom of others requires us to be silent or even nice about what we take to be harmful and false. Mark L. McPherran; Burnaby, British Columbia For creationism In response to Karl Giberson's piece, we take issue with his statements about Ken Ham and our Creation Museum. Contrary to the writer's opinion, biblical creationists are as far removed from a cult as you can get. Gallup polls in recent years continue to show that almost half of Americans agree with the statement: "God created humans pretty much in their present form either exactly as the Bible describes it or within the last 10,000 years." Also, our numbers are growing, not shrinking. We work with hundreds of creation scientists around the world; in South Korea alone, hundreds of scientists with doctorates believe in creation and reject evolution. Our group has several full-time staff members with doctorates in their fields. Genesis remains the foundational book of evangelical Christianity. Mark Looy, co-founder Answers in Genesis, Creation Museum Petersburg, Ky. Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more