Congratulations on your sensible reporting of attempts by creationists to get into science classrooms (Anger over move to teach intelligent design in schools, News, November 2).

Neo-­creationists' views that intelligent design is consistent with scientific method demonstrates the futility of trying to rationalise with the irrational. Government must keep myths and fantasy out of science classes.

However, any and all beliefs could and should be discussed and analysed in schools, but in the right subject areas: philosophy and religious and moral education. The Australian comedian and songwriter, Tim Minchin, has, perhaps, put it most pertinently: "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

David Muir


I think the concept of "intelligent design" and obsessive attempts to debunk Darwin trivialise God's miraculous and awesome creation and probably make a stone of stumbling where none exists. All God's creation encompasses the laws of physics and chemistry, which scientists have proved by following up the many clues provided by God. This is what all those who seek answers to important questions do.

Why should our children, our future scientists and thinkers, not be taught about God's creation, as told in the first chapter of the book of Genesis, and be allowed to follow up whatever clues they may find and make up their own minds? To achieve this, religious education in schools would be given the status of a necessary and important subject taught by an imaginative and caring teacher. God's word and science are entirely compatible.

Charlotte Hunter


In this article the qualifications of those who would oppose intelligent design are prominently listed, while Dr Alastair Noble, who has a doctorate in chemistry and served in several senior positions in education including years as one of Her Majesty's inspectors of education (including science education), is referred to as plain Alastair Noble and subsequently as Noble. No indication is given that the man might know what he's talking about. Whether or not the writer agrees or disagrees with what he says this is unfair.

Joyce Gallacher