It is with great regret that I note Professor Michael Reiss has resigned as director of education with the Royal Society. He had the courage to raise an issue that I, as a science teacher, have come to recognise as pressing - that there are young people who hold religious faith sitting in science classes becoming increasingly disengaged because they have been taught to believe that science is inimical to religious belief. Part of this view is centred around Creationism.

As a Christian I am entirely at ease with evolution. It troubles me not one jot. I would be delighted if young people who cleave to Creationism because they think that evolution is destructive of faith opened up about their views in class so that we could discuss them. That is the first step, surely, toward dispelling the misconceptions that Creationists have about the theory and about the observations that support it.

This was the position taken by Michael Reiss. It was eminently sensible. It was robustly scientific. At no point did he suggest that Creationism should be "taught", or regarded as science. What he said, as far as I can make out, was entirely in keeping with the Royal Society's policy on the matter. So why has he been forced to resign?

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he has been the victim of a witch hunt. Certain high-profile scientists who have well-rehearsed personal agendas regarding religion have used the "possible misunderstanding" of Professor Reiss's remarks to force him from his position. Strange - I have always thought science was supposed to be about facts rather than "possible misunderstandings". It seems to me that Prof Reiss's remarks were pretty clear. It is no secret that at least one of the eminent scientists who complained to the Royal Society took the view that Prof Reiss's position as an ordained clergyman should have automatically disqualified him from the post he held.

This has been a dark day for those of us who are engaged in science. We have allowed rumours and whispers as substitutes for fact and reason. We have allowed dogmatism and intolerance to guide our actions. We have allowed personal agendas to bully a good man into resignation. Which begs the question: what is the Royal Society for? Andrew Morton, Lockerbie.