ROD LIDDLE does his best to knock scientists off their pedestals while taking care not to side with the “deadbeat” promoters of intelligent design (Comment, last week). But he goes one step too far. By suggesting that it is reasonable to discuss ID as a possible alternative to evolutionary theory in school science lessons he has sadly fallen into the same trap of so many others in this recent non-debate.

The reason why intelligent design should not be taught in science classes is blindingly simple: it isn’t science. Does Liddle also think that A-level biology should include a short module on the virgin birth as an alternative to sexual reproduction, or perhaps a homework assignment about life after death? After all, millions of people believe in those.

The only people who think that science is based on a series of unquestionable facts or, as Liddle puts it, a “quasi- religious fixation with certitude” are those who have never done any scientific research.

Much of this misunderstanding is the fault of scientists themselves for not doing enough to promote science outside their exclusive club. But they are not the only ones to blame.

Intelligent design is at best religious-right extremism; at worst, intellectual laziness. And with today’s school-leavers facing genuine and unprecedented scientific, ethical and philosophical issues, such as stem cell research, human cloning and climate change, it has never been more vital that we stop entertaining such regressive, derisory fodder.

Dr Matthew Chalmers
Institute of Physics