‘Intelligent design’ debate is still evolving

An informed public need not entertain any question or debate about whether or not “intelligent design,” or ID, should be taught in public school science classes. The key point in this issue was beautifully and illustratively summed up in your Aug. 6 editorial, “Faith vs. evidence.” The editorial states that “ID and evolutionary theory are not just irreconcilable; they are in realms as distant as astronomy and the polka.” This is precisely the point. Evolutionary theory, whether one agrees with its every tenet or not, has a scientific basis and an explanatory capacity that ID simply cannot provide and does not attempt to offer. ID is not science. A point of view is not science. The answer is as simple and elegant as that.

SHERRI ANDREWS

Tujunga

*

I’m shocked The Times feels teaching “intelligent design” would be a great “blow.” And I was simply astounded The Times thinks it would be awful to teach ID to students at taxpayer expense. Why is The Times always right and anything it perceives to be right of center always wrong? Does The Times really believe that too much knowledge can be detrimental to a student?

SUZETTE VAN BYLEVELT

Los Angeles

*

In explaining its rejection of President Bush’s suggestion that intelligent design be taught alongside evolution, The Times states, “Both are, to a certain point, about biology. But ID also demands belief in the untestable. There it becomes faith, not science.”

In what way is evolution testable? Until someone invents a time machine and goes back to the beginning of the world, scientists will be no more able to prove that evolution originated life than to disprove that an intelligent being did.

VICKI GEWE

Pomona