To the editor:

Although your recent editorial1, “An intelligently designed response” was apposite, an important omission was apparent. Yes, debunking intelligent design (ID) by scientific reasoning requires good lay communication skills. Yes, merely (correctly) dismissing ID as nonsense will only fuel charges of scientific arrogance. And yes, the point about the nature of science has to be made because doing so makes palpable that ID is not science. However, the advice to avoid a religious discussion is questionable—particularly as so doing does not necessarily entail an atheistic rant.

As well as emphasizing what ID is not, we also need to consider what it is. ID proponents eschew its association with literalist creationism but couple religious conservatism with a technology-friendly modernity. In the UK, we have a Christian organization, absurdly named 'Truth in Science', which has distributed glossy paraphernalia to the science departments of secondary schools and sixth form colleges, advocating ID inclusion in science lessons. Despite contravening the national curriculum, this marketing ploy has apparently proven effective in persuading a number of schools that it has scientific credentials. ID appeals to fundamentalists of other religions. Harun Yahya, the pseudonymous vehicle for Muslim creationist propaganda, has distributed a lavish, 800-page tome to schools and universities, scientists and museums in France and the US. Thus, referring to religion is both unavoidable and necessary to understand the strategy at work here. ID is nothing more than sexed-up creationism for the media age, a realization necessary for an effective refutation of its scientific posturing.

Please visit methagora for further discussion on this topic.