Sir, Science cannot make a statement either way on the supernatural. It is no less scientific to say that an Airbus A380 requires intelligence to design than to state that the independent wing control of the damselfly (including supination and pronation timing) shows evidence of design.

To give the impression to students in the UK that it is somehow off limits even to discuss this (letter, Oct 3) is tantamount to brainwashing our next generation with the philosophy of humanism. All that Truth in Science wishes to see is an honest opening out of the origins debate in our schools and universities.

That there has been such a heated response to the DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life, sent to every secondary school in the country, shows that there is an issue, there is a debate and there are obvious philosophical consequences.

We need to teach our children how to think, not what to think. To suggest that design cannot be scientifically verified is nonsense. The exquisite nature of nano-mechanisms in living creatures has led to the growth of the discipline known as biomimetics, copying nature to advantage in engineering.

I am eager that more students should work at the interface between life sciences and engineering and understand design in nature.

ANDY C. McINTOSH
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory
University of Leeds

Sir, The best place, possibly the only place, for creationism and other faith-associated issues to be analysed is in the theatre of science. The earlier this begins the better: in primary school preferably, secondary school certainly.

For some reason science seems to be in fear of faith and seeks to distance itself from its religious and philosophical manifestations. It trivialises them. This is a futile position, for it permits unreasoned doctrines to prosper and encourages the untenable and discouraging view that personal belief and faith have no place in science.

The public image of science is mostly formed from reports on the leading edge of research — the asking process — where argument, debate and disagreement are manifest. This brief and fluid research period is totally faith based, with all those working in this field having notional, speculative views of the way things are. Their researches are designed to substantiate their beliefs.

I see no compelling reason to distinguish this “faith” from that felt in respect of religious objectives. Disputes may be every bit as heated, and based on as little “factual” evidence as some religious confrontations. Many pursue false “gods” and fall by the wayside, but never without facing their critics in the pursuit of their belief.

It is only by constant questioning, challenging and reinterpretation in the light of new information that understanding progresses. The British Centre for Science Education should embrace this inquisitorial, correctional philosophy without fear. Science is not for the faint hearted.

DR MIKE SNOW
Former senior research scientist
Medical Research Council

Sir, Truth in Science (report, Sept 29) is seeking to enable school science students to follow the evidence for and against evolution wherever it leads.

We are commited to truthfulness and good science, and invite our critics to identify the alleged “scientific errors” of our website. Where convinced they occur, we will correct them.

DR RICHARD BUGGS
Scientific panel
Truth in Science
Tonbridge, Kent

Explore Letters

• Feedback