The Post's concern that the theory of "intelligent design" is being misused as a stealth weapon to introduce creationism into our schools is praiseworthy ["God and Darwin," editorial, Jan. 24]. But the editorial was imprecise in its understanding of intelligent design.
Darwinism accounts for speciation, the evolution of species by natural selection, and is in no way incompatible with intelligent design, which does not challenge this established scientific theory. Rather, intelligent design contends that at a cellular level, which Darwin does not address, the scientific evidence is suggestive of order and design rather than chance. There are similar observations about the universe. But such a theory should be taught only as an elective in advanced courses. People can contend that design implies a designer but should not use that opinion to impose creationism, a religious view, as a scientific contention in public schools.
MARTIN C. ROSNER
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
Many school boards are arguing about whether to include "intelligent design" in their curriculums, The Post's editorial said. If they are serious, the appropriate way is not to have scientists trying to discuss intelligent design in classes such as biology or physics. Most of them don't believe in it and are not equipped to provide historical context. As the editorial said, such discussion is legitimate, however, in a history or philosophy class.
A high-school-level course in introductory philosophy could capably deal with intelligent design. It was a significant issue among philosophers at least through the 18th century and was revitalized with the publication of Darwin's work in the 19th century. Such a course would give students the opportunity to learn the arguments that religious and nonreligious philosophers have made on this topic.
Scientists must be free to teach what they believe to be the scientific truth about the universe.
WILLIAM W. LINDSAY
Chestertown
