Sir, Creationism has no scientific validity but this does not stop some people from believing that it does (“Royal Society and the case for creationism”, Sept 12). If a young person raises the issue of creationism in a science class, a teacher should be in a position to examine why it does not stand up to scientific investigation. This position is the same as current government policy.

Evolution is recognised as the best explanation for the history of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. It is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world.

Professor Michael Reiss
Director of Education
The Royal Society

Sir, The choice is not between science and blind faith, but between dogmatic scientism and reason (“Royal Society and the case for creationism”, Sept 12).

There would have been no science had it not been for Christian philosophy, and you don’t need an apologist for the faith to tell you this truth. Listen to one of the most outstanding scientists of the last century, A. N. Whitehead, co-author with Bertrand Russell of Principia Mathematica, who wrote: “There is but one source for science: it must come from the Medieval insistence on the rationality of God.”

Christianity is a reasonable faith which holds that rationality itself originates with God himself — precisely with the Logos, the rational principle.

The Rev Dr Peter Mullen
London EC1

Sir, How dare we compartmentalise knowledge as you suggest? (leader, Sept 12). Science raises questions about religion as does religion about science, relevant in lessons in both subjects. True, some assertions atheists make about religion in the name of science merit consideration as little as some assertions of creationists about science in the name of religion. But neither should be excluded. For many the crunch questions are less about how we were created than about the purpose. We know where we came from — evolution tells us how — but are we going somewhere? And if so, where? And why?

Denis Osborne
Canterbury

Sir, The difficulty with Darwinism is neither that it requires that the Earth must be many millions of years older than Archbishop Usher’s naive calculation from the Bible suggests, nor that organisms evolved over millions of years rather than that they were created in their present forms at the very beginning. The real problem is that Darwinism would compel us to believe that we are what we are simply as a result of the application of the amoral principle of the survival of the fittest to the random mutation of our genetic material over many generations.

Such a notion deprives our existence of any ultimate significance and this is the reason why Darwinism is unpalatable to so many people of all religions and of none.

My guess is that, whatever they may say, most people believe in some theory of intelligent design.